CDC director turns to media consultant as Covid-19 messaging frustrations mount

[demmiblue]

Source: CNN

(CNN)Dr. Rochelle Walensky assumed her new role as the director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last January with a vow to restore trust in the agency. But last fall, several months into the job and after a series of messaging missteps, Walensky sought out media training.

For months, Walensky has met privately with prominent Democratic media consultant Mandy Grunwald to improve her communication skills and continues to do so, according to a person familiar with the previously unreported sessions. On Friday, Walensky will hold the CDC's first independent media briefing since the summer after deciding abruptly this week that she wanted to take questions "head on," according to a person familiar with her decision to hold the briefing.

It comes as the agency is facing a barrage of criticism over confusion stemming from its new guidelines on isolation for people who test positive for Covid-19. Beyond Walensky's personal messaging struggles, the agency has faced criticism for months over its at-times confusing guidance surrounding the pandemic, with one former senior Biden administration official saying the agency appears to be "overthinking" its communications.

Scientists within the CDC have also grown increasingly frustrated with Walensky's handling of public health guidance, a CDC scientist told CNN. According to the scientist, Walensky largely crafted the new guidance with the help of a small circle of top advisers, eschewing the traditional process of rigorous scientific vetting by experts at the CDC who would in turn also consult with outside public health partners and experts.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/07/politics/rochelle-walensky-cdc-communications-covid-19/index.html

[Autumn]

1. It was on the news this morning that the CDC has said that healthcare workers who have mild

symptoms of Covid can retun to work. Now that's some kind of crazy bullshit.

[IronLionZion]

2. It feels like it's to address the shortage of healthcare workers

which is a big problem in many cities. While I'm sure many of them would prefer to properly rest at home to get better and come back when healthy.

[Autumn]

3. Yeah it is. It's still bullshit.

[YP_Yooper]

19. Only thing I can think of

is that not everyone - especially with mild symptoms - is infectious. With family in the medical field who ran out of their "COVID days", this amounts to real money for them and they're pretty darn good at masking up.

[Rebl2]

4. Time for

her to bring in more of the experts at CDC. If she doesn’t, then time for her to go.

[IronLionZion]

5. Do we want guidance to come out fast or go through rigorous vetting first?

Not sure where we can draw the line for optimal balance. Walensky and Fauci believe they are achieving the correct balance. I trust their judgment but maybe they should let someone else handle the communications. I believe comms to the public is within the Surgeon General's duties more than CDC and NIH.

[hlthe2b]

7. Not true. The agencies have always managed their own communications.

And, at least at CDC, media training has long been part of their training for epidemiologists and mid-level scientist professionals. They have long been supported by highly trained media communications professionals. That those brought in outside the ranks have not always had such training has been obvious for some time.

[IronLionZion]

8. And that's been a problem

since their guidance doesn't include how workplaces and businesses and public facing entities should adapt to comply.

I'm saying there would be a benefit to a central body in charge of comms to the American public for the COVID pandemic to reduce variation and confusion. Like a COVID czar.

[hlthe2b]

9. I'm talking the past.You need to reread what was written in OP. It hasn't been that way since before

Trump with the career scientists/epidemiologists continuing to be sidelined on this. I know of what I speak.

[hlthe2b]

6. THIS:

Scientists within the CDC have also grown increasingly frustrated with Walensky's handling of public health guidance, a CDC scientist told CNN. According to the scientist, Walensky largely crafted the new guidance with the help of a small circle of top advisers, eschewing the traditional process of rigorous scientific vetting by experts at the CDC who would in turn also consult with outside public health partners and experts.

I had assumed this would be the "old NEW" once Trump was out of the WH, but it has not been. I like Walensky, but she did not come through the ranks and apparently did not listen to those telling her how CDC had successfully navigated these issues while building outside support and consensus for decades. I hope she learns now.

[Raven123]

10. I fear Walensky's credibility in this position is irreparable.

I have no doubt the CDC has taken great pains to follow the science. However, as the pandemic has progressed, they haven’t kept up. I can’t imagine the difficulty of managing public health recommendations given the dynamic landscape, but it seems the article is accurate in noting the closed circle of discussion. They just don’t seem to be thinking in real time about everyday decisions facing the public.

[sarcasmo]

11. The CDC needs should stop listening to health care CEO's. Consistency matters.

[Javaman]

12. the odd messaging and the almost conflicting statements sound to me like

there are some weird internal shit going down at the CDC

[Slammer]

13. quit shooting yourself in the foot

If they want to restore trust in the CDC, quit shortening quarantine times and telling infected people they don't need to test to figure out whether they're still contagious before they go back out in the public...while case numbers and hospitalization numbers are skyrocketing.

That's a completely self-inflicted wound that's been done by the CDC in the last month.

Not Trump's CDC. Biden's CDC.

[YP_Yooper]

14. Posted this earlier, but this can't be surprising

... this is just an example of how the CDC was screwed under Trump, and can't get their mojo back by outside appointees. I also think that while the CDC may "follow the science", they create policy which is NOT always science driven. The biggest problem since day 1 is not the NIH and the CDC body of research, but the policies the CDC ran with that was screwed up, biased by corporations and politicians, and flat out known wrong when they made the policy (masks don't work, COVID is not airborne, vacc will keep you from infection, no mask if vacc, buy Chlorox wipes because it spreads primarily on surfaces - and on and on).

I read the report from HHS this month detailing an extensive investigation by Biden's HHS Office of the General Counsel showing how, generally, disregarded, incompetent, arrogant, and dysfunctional the CDC is - especially early on in the pandemic with their recommendations and the failed COVID testing:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/danvergano/covid-test-false-positive-failure-cdc-documents

[WhiskeyGrinder]

15. She's gotta go. Her comments from earlier today about deaths coming from people with comorbidities

being "encouraging news" were horrifying.

[hamsterjill]

16. Agreed.

She has already lost all credibility in my view.

[cadoman]

17. if we're becoming frustrated with the science then we are part of the problem

For the last two years the gqp idiots fought CDC guidance and exacerbated the pandemic. If we turn on the CDC now because we don't like the messaging then we have joined the anti-science, "do muh own research" plague.

Walensky and her employees need our support and obedience more than ever right now. People need to chill out and let the CDC do its thing. Stop second guessing the fucking science.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

18. I will definitely turn on any organization that touts a eugenic result as "encourging" in its

messaging.

Scientists within the CDC have also grown increasingly frustrated with Walensky's handling of public health guidance, a CDC scientist told CNN. According to the scientist, Walensky largely crafted the new guidance with the help of a small circle of top advisers, eschewing the traditional process of rigorous scientific vetting by experts at the CDC who would in turn also consult with outside public health partners and experts.

Sorry, when the CDC recs suddenly look like plans businesses wanted, it's not exactly science anymore. She's a disappointment, and not the person we need in that position at this time.

[cadoman]

21. how do we know those "scientists" are trustworthy, or that CNN's summary of their concerns is?

The CDC, like any government institution, has mechanisms for reporting concerns and whistle-blowing. These scientists should have used those mechanisms to air their grievances, rather than sowing discord in the agency by leaking their concerns to the press.

I know a lot of gqp fools who know "scientists" and "doctors" that second guessed the CDC--incorrectly, of course. And yes, they _were_ in fact fully accredited scientists and doctors, who had simply fallen for Russian and fascist misinformation.

How do we know that these anonymous "scientists" that CNN cites haven't fallen for misinformation too?

Such is the dangers of "muh own research", and why I suggest you all stop worrying yourselves and listen to the CDC, like we should have from the fucking beginning.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

23. It's hilarious to me that my post objecting to the eugenics-based messaging from the head of the CDC

has resulted in concern-trolling about being anti-science.

[cadoman]

24. her comment had nothing to do with eugenics

It's important for scientists to know how the deaths break down and reconcile it with the other conditions a person may have. It doesn't mean she doesn't care for every life her policies reach. She is the head of the CDC, after all.

Rather than reading it as eugenics-based message, maybe you could have read it as a message that we have more work to do to help COVID-affected persons with comorbidities? For example, maybe persons with auto-immune disorders or diabetes need safety protocols tailored to their needs.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

25. .

It's important for scientists to know how the deaths break down and reconcile it with the other conditions a person may have. It doesn't mean she doesn't care for every life her policies reach. She is the head of the CDC, after all.

Honestly, I don't give a shit if she cares about "every life" or not in her heart. What I do care about is not giving a message to the public -- she wasn't talking to other scientists, she was commenting on Good Morning America -- that says "the people most likely to die anyway are those who are most likely to die, so that's encouraging."

Rather than reading it as eugenics-based message, maybe you could have read it as a message that we have more work to do to help COVID-affected persons with comorbidities? For example, maybe persons with auto-immune disorders or diabetes need safety protocols tailored to their needs.

Which she had every opportunity to say, and the CDC has every opportunity to recommend, and neither of which is happening.

Her messaging makes it easy for a lot of us to pretend that the most dire results of coming down with covid happen to Other People, when that's just not true.

[cadoman]

22. I remember the CDC guidance evolving as the science evolved

With drumpf randomly interjecting himself in unpredictable and extremely counterproductive ways that led to millions of needless deaths.

The CDC/NIH/WHO and company though, always based their policy on the current scientific consensus, most of which at any instance was overwhelming.

I'm incredibly grateful to the scientists and doctors working there. Every day they're working to save this project to improve humanity, and I apologize on behalf of DU, for any that may be reading, for the small portions of the readership that doubt their expertise or advice.

[YP_Yooper]

26. I'm incredibly grateful to the scientists and doctors working there.

+1000

[Deminpenn]

27. Think Walensky could do better, but she is in a difficult

situation with so much still unknown about SARS-CoV2 despite 2 years since its emergence. It's not like the common cold or the flu where there are years and years of knowledge and experience. SARS-CoV2 knowledge is evolving daily. With evolving knowledge comes evolving and changing guidance. It can't be helped.

The CDC scientists probably want to be very sure of something before putting out guidance, but that is not really possible right now with all the ongoing studies, research and conclusions from many different places under varying pandemic conditions.

There are other concerns to consider besides physical health,like mental health and the effects of isolation on developement of kids. And there are economic considerations, too, whether or not scientists like it.

It's a tough balancing act for sure.