White House goes public with attacks on Fauci

White House goes public with attacks on Fauci

Dr. Anthony Fauci describes his 'very different' relationships ...

Tensions between the White House and Anthony Fauci, the government’s top infectious diseases expert, are spilling into the open as officials openly attack the doctor for his public health advice during the coronavirus pandemic. 

Fauci’s advice has often run contrary to President Trump’s views, and the attacks on Fauci have begun to look like a traditional negative political campaign against an opponent. Yet this time, the opponent is a public health expert and career civil servant working within the administration. 

Dan Scavino, deputy chief of staff for communications, shared a cartoon on his Facebook page late Sunday that depicted Fauci as a faucet flushing the U.S. economy down the drain with overzealous health guidance to slow the spread of the pandemic.

The cartoon, which shows Fauci declaring schools should remain closed and calling for “indefinite lockdowns,” did not accurately portray what Fauci has advised in public.

Adm. Brett Giroir, the administration’s testing czar, downplayed any riff within the White House coronavirus task force before offering some criticism of Fauci.

“I respect Dr. Fauci a lot, but Dr. Fauci is not 100 percent right and he also doesn’t necessarily, and he admits that, have the whole national interest in mind,” Giroir told “Meet the Press” on Sunday. “He looks at it from a very narrow public health point of view.”

There have been tensions between Trump and Fauci throughout the pandemic. The president has repeatedly downplayed the severity of the virus, broken with the advice of his own public health experts and painted rosy but at times misleading pictures of the U.S. response. Fauci, who has served four decades in his current post, has offered blunt talk on the dangers of the pandemic that has directly contradicted the president from time to time.

But the latest criticisms mark a shift as the White House has begun publicly undermining one of the leading public health voices in the administration at a time when multiple states are struggling to get new outbreaks under control.

White House trade adviser Peter Navarro, whom the president tapped to manage the use of the Defense Production Act, said he personally proceeds with caution before heeding Fauci’s advice.

Trump said last week that Fauci is a nice man but that he’s “made a lot of mistakes.”

A White House official this weekend sent media outlets a lengthy list of “mistakes” Fauci has made since the pandemic began, like his comment in March that there is no need for people to wear masks.

That comment came before scientists knew people could spread the virus without showing symptoms, and Fauci, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other experts now urge people to use face coverings in public.

Public health experts have leaped to Fauci’s defense on Twitter, noting that Fauci is one of the most respected health experts in the world, having worked for six presidents and researched HIV/AIDS, Ebola, Zika and a variety of other infectious diseases.

“When studies show that, opposite from SARS & MERS, COVID19 is most infectious soon after infection & less infectious later, we recognize asymptomatic transmission and importance of masks,” tweeted Tom Frieden, the former director of the CDC.

“That’s called science, not a mistake. The real, deadly mistake is not listening to science.” 

Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, tweeted, “His track record isn’t perfect. It’s just better than anyone else I know. Sidelining Dr. Fauci makes the federal response worse. And it’s the American people who suffer.”

Polls still show the public trusts Fauci more than Trump for accurate information on the virus, with Democrats more likely than Republicans to believe the infectious diseases expert.

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany during a “Fox & Friends” interview Monday insisted Fauci’s recommendations were reaching Trump, while saying he represented only “one viewpoint” among many considered by the president.

“The point of the task force is to be a whole of government look at what is best for this country,” McEnany said when asked about the status of the relationship between Trump and Fauci. “Dr. Fauci is one member of a team, but rest assured, his viewpoint is represented and the information gets to the president through the task force.”

Still, Fauci’s public appearances became few and far between as his dire warnings about the state of the pandemic in the U.S. increasingly clashed from more hopeful messages coming from the White House. 

Fauci also told the Financial Times last week that he hadn’t briefed Trump in two months, in which time a growing number of states have experienced significant surges in cases.

Fauci was not present at the White House coronavirus task force media briefing last week, events that have become rarer even as the COVID crisis grows worse.

And while he was a regular on cable news in the early days of the pandemic, his appearances have dwindled, a fact he said last week could be because of his “honesty.” 

While Fauci has warned that the U.S. could hit 100,000 new COVID-19 cases per day if steps aren’t taken to alter the trajectory of the outbreaks, Trump has tied the rise in cases to increased testing. 

While Fauci attributed outbreaks in some states to reopening too quickly after the spring lockdowns, Trump and his top allies have mostly stood by their decision to push governors to jump over checkpoints set by the White House.

Fauci has refuted the president’s claims that the rise in cases is solely tied to increased testing and that 99 percent of cases are “totally harmless.” 

And as Trump touted a falling COVID-19 death rate, which is actually now increasing, Fauci has said the U.S. shouldn’t take comfort in the “false narrative,” noting the disease can cause other severe health outcomes. 

Fauci’s warnings grew more urgent last week when he warned that the U.S. is “facing a serious problem” and the pandemic has become politicized. 

“And you know from experience historically that when you don’t have unanimity in an approach to something, you’re not as effective in how you handle it,” Fauci said in an interview with FiveThirtyEight. “So I think you’d have to make the assumption that if there wasn’t such divisiveness, that we would have a more coordinated approach.”

 

 

 

 

We’re losing the war on the coronavirus

https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-losing-war-b36632fb-33b0-4cb0-84b2-14000841d89c.html

We're losing the war on the coronavirus - Axios

By any standard, no matter how you look at it, the U.S. is losing its war against the coronavirus.

Why it matters: The pandemic is not an abstraction, and it is not something that’s simmering in the background. It is an ongoing emergency ravaging nearly the entire country, with a loss of life equivalent to a Sept. 11 every three days — for four months and counting.

The big picture: “The part that really baffles me is the complete lack of interest in doing anything to achieve the goals we all agree on,” said Ashish Jha, the director of the Global Health Institute at Harvard.

  • Everyone wants to be able to safely reopen schools and see their friends and leave the house. To do those things safely, you have to get the virus under control. But much of America is talking and planning like victors at the precise moment we’re in the throes of defeat.

Seven times over the last two weeks, the U.S. has set a new record for the most cases in a single day. Cases are increasing in 33 states, and several of those states are seeing such staggering increases that they may soon overwhelm their hospitals.

  • No, those increases are not just a reflection of better testing. And though testing has dramatically improved, it’s still not enough to meet demand.
  • The peak of the U.S.’ coronavirus vigilance is in the past, but the peak of the virus’ actual spread is happening right now.

Yes, but: Public health experts say they’re optimistic that we’ll get our act together.

  • “It’s certainly within our power to turn things around. Whether or not we will depends on whether our political leaders will commit themselves to it,” said Jennifer Nuzzo, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University. “If they’re able to get on the same page as the evidence, then I think they can avoid shutdowns.”

It’s true — and it’s good — that the percentage of all coronavirus patients who die seems to be falling. And experts hope that will hold, as the pool of infected people is skewing younger.

  • But “I don’t know that I take much comfort in this, knowing that thousands of people are going to die in the coming days and weeks and it was all preventable,” Jha said.
  • The virus has already killed over 130,000 people in the U.S. — roughly the population of Charleston, S.C. And deaths are now beginning to rise in the places experiencing big outbreaks.
  • Patients who don’t die can still experience lasting, painful symptoms, including damage to the lungs, heart, immune system and even the brain, after they leave the hospital.

What’s next: The optimistic view is that the pandemic just had to get worse before it gets better — that people outside of the New York region may not have taken it seriously enough in the early days when it was concentrated there, but that they will now.

The bottom line: “I think there’s a lot we can still do to turn around, and i’m still hopeful we are going to get more leadership to fight this thing,” Jha said. “I think we’re going to have to relearn the lessons of March and April and New York, without the ability to say, ‘Oh that was just New York.’ “It’s going to be a painful summer.”

 

 

 

 

COVID-19 surge pushes US toward deadly cliff

COVID-19 surge pushes US toward deadly cliff

Archive

The coronavirus is spreading at ever-faster rates in a broad array of states, putting the U.S. on the precipice of an explosion of illness that threatens to overwhelm the nation’s health care system.

The painful economic lockdowns imposed in March gave the country time to flatten the epidemiological curve and contain the virus. But that window of opportunity, which came at great economic cost, is quickly slamming shut. Health experts say all signs point to a deadly summer and fall unless government leaders implement a much more robust national strategy.

The breadth of the spread is staggering. Forty-three states have seen the number of cases confirmed on an average day increase in the last two weeks. The number of patients in hospitals has risen over the same period in 29 states. More than 80 percent of intensive care beds are occupied in Alabama, Arizona and Georgia.

The same models that predicted surges in Phoenix, Houston and Miami now show a new and broader round of cities as the likely next epicenters. The number of confirmed cases is likely to rise substantially in places like Atlanta, Kansas City, Mo., Tulsa, Okla., and Greenville, S.C.

The virus also appears to be traveling north along the I-95 corridor. Cities like Philadelphia and Baltimore, which struggled through earlier peaks of viral transmission, are now seeing early signs of a second wave. Transmissions even appear to be rising in New York City.

On the other side of the country, outbreaks in California have grown to unprecedented proportions. The Golden State is now averaging more than 7,900 new cases a day, substantially more than its seven-day average just two weeks ago.

Public health experts warn that the U.S. has only a fleeting window in which to wrestle the virus back under some form of control. Without a stronger national response, including restrictions on large gatherings and requirements that people wear masks in public, the risk of a second peak could bring new lockdowns and more economic harm, derail the beginning of the new school year and even overwhelm local health systems.

“Our projections show that without immediate actions to significantly reduce travel and social distancing nationwide, this virus will not only threaten our ability to reopen schools in the coming weeks, but our capacity to care for the sickest individuals,” said David Rubin, director of PolicyLab at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia whose models forecast higher case counts.

More than 3.1 million Americans have tested positive for the virus, though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that as many as 25 million people in the U.S. may have contracted it. More than 133,000 people have died, almost twice as many victims as in Brazil, the second-hardest hit country.

Cities that successfully avoided early explosions of cases are now in the crosshairs after the loosening of restrictions in some states and regions that helped avoid what studies have suggested would have been tens of millions of infections.

“I would be lying if I didn’t say I was concerned,” Kansas City, Mo., Mayor Quintin Lucas said in an interview. “We have looked at the trends out of Texas, Arizona and Florida. Those states kind of reflect the political choices that were made statewide in Missouri, and that does give us concern.”

The Kansas City metropolitan area has confirmed more than 10,000 coronavirus cases. The PolicyLab model shows Jackson County, Mo., is likely to experience more than 200 new cases every day by the beginning of August.

Rubin warned that smaller cities are likely to experience significant outbreaks in the coming weeks, potentially straining health systems that are not as prepared to handle a high volume of patients in need of intensive care. College towns like South Bend, Ind., and Tuscaloosa, Ala., are beginning to see case counts rise even with most students gone.

“We’re starting to see a mild uptick,” said James Mueller, South Bend’s mayor. “We’re in a much better position now than we were for the first increase or the first peak.”

At other levels of government, some who have sought to downplay the severity of the American outbreak have pointed to an increasing number of tests being conducted across the country, which they say will naturally lead to identification of those who have only minor symptoms or asymptomatic cases. But the number of cases is rising faster than would be accounted for by the increase in testing; the share of tests coming back positive is rising in 38 states.

More than a quarter of tests conducted in Arizona are coming back positive, according to state data. More than 15 percent of tests are coming back positive in Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas.

Governors in 23 states have ordered residents to wear masks in public, though President Trump has refused to order a nationwide mask mandate. Trump has instead focused on reopening the economy, insisting that schools operate as normal in the months before he faces voters in November.

But public health experts argue action is needed now to avoid a second peak of tsunami-like proportions.

“We never gave communities a real chance at success as we lacked a national strategy around masking and limiting gathering sizes to act as a buffer as places reopened,” Rubin and his colleagues Gregory Tasian and Jing Huang wrote.

“So, do we admit that we’ve failed and try to salvage the reopening of our schools in fall by quickly enacting a national approach to pause all reopenings and try to get our country back onto stable footing?” he asked. “It may not be what people want to hear, but the situation is that dire that we need to consider this.”

 

 

 

 

More young people are getting — and spreading — the coronavirus

https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-young-people-spread-5a0cd9e0-1b25-4c42-9ef9-da9d9ebce367.html

More young people are getting — and spreading — the coronavirus ...

More young people are being infected with the coronavirus, and even though they’re less likely to die from it, experts warn the virus’ spread among young adults may further fuel outbreaks across the United States.

Why it matters: Some people in their 20s and 30s face serious health complications from COVID-19, and a surge in cases among young people gives the virus a bigger foothold, increasing the risk of infection for more vulnerable people.

  • We may see a pattern of younger people being affected initially, but then, in a number of weeks from now, we’re going to see a more deadly pandemic spreading to elderly people,” says Alison Galvani, an epidemiologist at Yale University.

People can transmit the virus without knowing they have it, and younger people, in particular, could be unknowingly spreading the disease.

  • A study in Italy, yet to be peer reviewed, found the probability of having symptoms increased with age and that among 20–39-year-olds only about 22% had a fever or respiratory symptoms (compared to about 35% of 60–79-year-olds).
  • About half of the clusters in a study in Japan were traced back to people ages 20–39 at karaoke bars, offices and restaurants — and 41% of them did not have symptoms at the time.
  • “Younger people are at lower risk for serious COVID outcomes but are disproportionately responsible for asymptomatic transmission,” says Galvani, who published a study earlier this week that found the majority of COVID-19 transmission is from silent carriers who are pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic.

By the numbers: From Arizona to Allegheny County, Pa., young people increasingly account for COVID-19 cases.

  • In the county of Los Angeles, nearly 50% of cases are now in people under 40 (compared to about 30% in April), per the LA Times.
  • In Harris County, Texas, home to Houston, 43% of the 40,000 cases are in people ages 20–39, as of yesterday.
  • In Florida, the median age of confirmed cases is hovering in the mid- to late-30s, compared to age 65 in March.

And the proportion of young people hospitalized for COVID-19 has also grown.

  • 40% of hospitalizations for COVID-19 at the end of June were for people 18–49-years-old, compared to 26% at the end of March, according to the COVID-NET database of hospitalizations in 14 states that represent about 10% of the U.S. population.

Between the lines: Yes, young people are going to bars and parties — but also to work.

  • 42% of people ages 18–39 said they had socialized without social distancing compared to 26% of people over 40, in a survey last month from the Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape.
  • 64% of frontline workers (grocery store clerks, health care workers, delivery drivers and other essential workers) are under 50.
  • There’s a need for better education so that young people choose to take steps to prevent infection, says Lauren Ancel Meyers, a mathematical epidemiologist at UT Austin.
  • “But it also might come down to policies or regulations that get employers to ensure they are providing a safe workplace or resources to protect 20, 30 and other age groups that are working for them.”

Where it stands: Young people are still much less likely to be hospitalized or die from the virus than people older than 60.

  • Yes, but: They can and do get very sick with the disease — from dangerous blood clots in their lungs to inflammation of the heart, lungs and even brain.
  • And the long-term consequences are unknown.
  • The risk is higher for young people of color: For example, the majority of coronavirus hospitalizations among Latino/Hispanic Americans are in people ages 18–49, my Axios colleague Caitlin Owens reported.

“The death rate among the young is not zero, and it is particularly not zero for people who have at least one co-morbid condition. This is not a completely benign disease of the young.”

— Joshua Schiffer, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center

What to watch: “If hospitals are strained now dealing with younger cases, they are going to be all the more taxed when the age distribution of infections shifts to the elderly,” Galvani says.

 

 

 

 

 

Our new default coronavirus strategy: herd immunity

https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-vitals-8f089110-bdd3-440e-9f8a-d8e431e2e18e.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosvitals&stream=top

The U.S.'s new default coronavirus strategy: herd immunity - Axios

By letting the coronavirus surge through the population with only minimal social distancing measures in place, the U.S. has accidentally become the world’s largest experiment in herd immunity.

Why it matters: Letting the virus spread while minimizing human loss is doable, in theory. But it requires very strict protections for vulnerable people, almost none of which the U.S. has established.

The big picture: Cases are skyrocketing, with hospitalizations and deaths following suit in hotspots. Not a single state has ordered another lockdown, even though per capita cases in Florida and Arizona have reached levels similar to New York and New Jersey’s in April.

  • Most states never built up the testing, contact tracing and isolation systems it would take to prevent the virus from spreading widely.
  • The Trump administration is generally ignoring or downplaying soaring caseloads across the South and West, and is pushing schools to fully reopen in the fall.
  • In Florida, where infections, hospitalizations and deaths are surging, Gov. Ron DeSantis “has repeatedly ruled out a sweeping mask mandate or taking the state back into a lockdown to stem the virus, although local governments have acted on their own,” per Bloomberg.

Between the lines: Separating older, sicker people from younger, healthier ones while the virus burns through the latter group could be a way to achieve herd immunity — assuming immunity exists — without hundreds of thousands of people dying.

  • But the U.S. hasn’t adopted such a strategy with any planning or foresight. Although younger people make up a larger portion of coronavirus cases now than they did earlier in the pandemic, vulnerable people still go to work or live with non-vulnerable people.

Yes, but: Some cities and states, particularly in the Northeast, are focused on containing the virus rather than living with it.

 

 

 

 

Trump sidelines public health advisers in growing rift over coronavirus response

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/trump-sidelines-public-health-advisers-in-growing-rift-over-coronavirus-response/2020/07/09/ad803218-c12a-11ea-9fdd-b7ac6b051dc8_story.html?fbclid=IwAR0MI5VGiJQmUsyEpzYDj09Q0VVxxYMlHwx-UjfHdmMu1PdGD6uIzv8R2fM&utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook

The Health 202: Health officials promise to ramp up pandemic ...

The June 28 email to the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was ominous: A senior adviser to a top Health and Human Services Department official accused the CDC of “undermining the President” by putting out a report about the potential risks of the coronavirus to pregnant women.

The adviser, Paul Alexander, criticized the agency’s methods, and said its warning to pregnant women “reads in a way to frighten women . . . as if the President and his administration can’t fix this and it is getting worse.”

As the country enters a frightening phase of the pandemic with new daily cases surpassing 62,000 on Wednesday, the CDC, the nation’s top public health agency, is coming under intense pressure from President Trump and his allies, who are downplaying the dangers in a bid to revive the economy ahead of the Nov. 3 election. In a White House guided by the president’s instincts, rather than by evidence-based policy, the CDC finds itself forced constantly to backtrack or sidelined from pivotal decisions.

The latest clash between the White House and its top public health advisers erupted Wednesday, when the president slammed the agency’s recommendation that schools planning to reopen should keep students’ desks six feet apart, among other steps to reduce infection risks. In a tweet, Trump — who has demanded schools at all levels hold in-person classes this fall — called the advice “very tough & expensive.”

“While they want them open, they are asking schools to do very impractical things. I will be meeting with them!!!” Trump tweeted Wednesday. Within hours, Vice President Pence had asserted the agency would release new guidance next week.

“The president said today we just don’t want the guidance to be too tough,” Pence told reporters. “And that’s the reason next week the CDC is going to be issuing a new set of tools.”

Analysts say the deepening divide is undermining the authority of one of the world’s premier public health agencies, which previously led fights against malaria, smallpox and HIV/AIDS. Amid the worst public health crisis in a century, the CDC has in recent months altered or rescinded recommendations on topics including wearing masks and safely reopening restaurants and houses of worship as a result of conflicts with top administration officials.

“At a time when our country needs an orchestrated, all-hands-on deck response, there is simply no hand on the tiller,” said Beth Cameron, former senior director for global health security and biodefense on the White House National Security Council.

In the absence of strong federal leadership, state and local officials have been left to figure things out for themselves, leading to conflicting messaging and chaotic responses. Trump’s decision to pull the U.S. out of the World Health Organization further undermined efforts to influence global strategies against the coronavirus, including how vaccines will be distributed.

The CDC, meanwhile, is increasingly isolated — a function both of its growing differences with the White House and of its own significant missteps earlier in the outbreak.

Those stumbles include the botched rollout of test kits likely contaminated at a CDC lab in late January, which led to critical delays in states’ ability to know where the virus was circulating. And the CDC’s initial decision to test only a narrow set of people gave the virus a head start spreading undetected across the country.

During a May lunch with Senate Republicans, Trump told the group the CDC “blew it” on the coronavirus test and that he’d installed a team of “geniuses” led by his son-in-law Jared Kushner to handle much of the response,” according to two people familiar with the lunch who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

“There is a view the CDC is staffed with deep state Democrats that are trying to tweak the administration,” said one adviser who also spoke on the condition of anonymity to reveal private conversations.

White House officials, who see the president’s reelection prospects tied to economic recovery, also say they’ve been deeply frustrated by what they view as career staffers at the agency determined “to keep things closed,” according to a senior administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to reveal internal deliberations.

Trump believes the CDC is “ineffective” and a “waste of time,” but doesn’t blame CDC Director Robert Redfield and generally likes him, said another official speaking on the condition of anonymity. “He just thinks he is a poor communicator,” the official added.

Joe Grogan, former head of the White House Domestic Policy Council, said Redfield had fans inside the White House who work on “addiction issues, on life issues, on HIV issues,” among other topics.

But he said Redfield has few political appointees to help him run a complex agency. “How do you run a place like that with … [few] appointees?” Grogan asked.

HHS Secretary Alex Azar called the director “a key scientific guide for the President and his administration, a trusted source for the American people, and a closely engaged partner of state and local governments.”

But Redfield is not a voice in coronavirus task force meetings, and “is never really in the Oval [Office] with the president,” said another senior administration official, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the internal dynamics.

Even Redfield’s supporters say he has failed to be an effective advocate for the agency.

“Bob Redfield’s commitment to public health is completely strong,” said William Schaffner, a veteran infectious-disease specialist at Vanderbilt University. But he said Redfield lacks the standing, deftness, and communication capacity to persuade skeptical audiences, including those in the White House, that protecting public health and fostering economic recovery are not opposing goals.

Redfield, for his part, downplayed Trump’s criticism of the CDC school reopeniing guidelines after a coronavirus task force briefing Wednesday, saying the agency and the president were “totally aligned.”

“We’re both trying to open the schools,” he said.

White House spokesman Judd Deere also disputed big differences, saying in a statement the White House and the CDC “have been working together in partnership since the very beginning of this pandemic to carry out the President’s highest priority: the health and safety of the American public.

“The CDC is the nation’s trusted health protection agency and its infectious disease and public health experts have helped deliver critical solutions to save lives. We encourage all Americans to continue to follow the CDC’s guidelines and use best-practices they have learned, such as social distancing, face coverings, and good hygiene, to maintain public health and continue our Transition to Greatness.”

But some health experts were indignant the agency had been ordered to rewrite guidance to reopen schools to “make it easier and cost less” — a demand that effectively “turns science on its head,” said Tom Inglesby, director of Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Health Security.

“CDC should be giving their best judgments on how to lower risks to make schools safer,” he said. “That’s their job. If they aren’t allowed to do that, the public will lose confidence in the guidance.”

Why are they ‘not shouting “fire”?’

The diminished role of the 74-year-old agency has bewildered infectious-disease experts, as well as members of the public seeking guidance.

After six states set one-day case records on July 3, Carlos del Rio, executive associate dean at Emory University’s School of Medicine, tweeted at Tom Frieden, a former CDC director, “Tom, where is @CDCgov ? Why are they not out there shouting ‘fire’?”

Frieden shot back: “They are still there, still doing great work, just not being allowed to talk about it, not being allowed to guide policy, not being allowed to develop, standardize, and post information that would give, by state and county, the status of the epidemic and of our control measures.”

Jeffrey Duchin, the health officer at Seattle and King County health department, added: “Agree. Muzzled, neutered and exiled.”

The agency has been largely invisible. After more than three months of silence, it resumed briefings for the public last month. There have been two.

By comparison, when the H1N1 swine flu pandemic hit the United States in the spring of 2009, the CDC held briefings almost every day for six consecutive weeks.

During this outbreak, the agency’s regular briefings ended abruptly after White House officials were angered when a top CDC leader warned that Americans could face “significant disruption” to their lives as a result of the virus’s spread to the United States.

CDC officials say they are still getting their message out, pointing to more than 2,000 documents providing pandemic-related information about reopening and staying safe for dozens of groups and venues, including funeral home directors, amusement parks, and pet owners. Each Friday, the CDC also posts CovidView, a weekly report of selected data and trends on testing, hospitalizations, and reported deaths.

But the information is posted without additional explanation or analysis.

“I want to hear a real person give me three minutes based on these findings,” said del Rio, also a global health and infectious-disease professor at Emory. “I want to see them in the news, being interviewed, giving us the data.”

Scientists at the CDC and former colleagues speak of deep frustration and low morale over its inability to fully share and explain scientific and medical information.

Researchers are fearful for their jobs and want to protect the integrity of the data they release. “If you want to say something, you’re thinking, ‘what’s the White House going to say and how are they going to use it,’ ” said one longtime scientist who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation.

The lack of briefings has fostered misunderstandings at times. In early April, for instance, when the agency reversed its position and recommended the use of cloth face coverings, CDC scientists gave no public briefings explaining why they made the change.

“It’s not rocket science,” said Nancy Cox, a virologist and former CDC official who led the influenza program for 22 years and was part of the agency’s response during the 2009 H1N1 swine flu pandemic. “But the reasoning behind those changes should be explained as clearly as possible and then you can get everyone on board.”

In the CDC’s absence, academic medical centers, public health and professional disease groups have filled the void by holding coronavirus briefings and providing analysis of key issues, data and research studies. Frieden, the president of Resolve to Save Lives, a New York nonprofit, has also been posting long Twitter threads analyzing the weekly CDC data released on Fridays.

Speaking ‘with an unfettered voice’

Alarmed at the agency’s diminished role, nearly 350 public health organizations sent a letter Tuesday to Azar urging him to advocate for the CDC. The agency must be allowed to speak based on the best available science “and with an unfettered voice,” said John Auerbach, president and chief executive of Trust for America’s Health, a public health nonprofit that led the effort.

House Democrats echoed those concerns in a separate letter to Azar last month. Reps. Diana DeGette of Colorado and Frank Pallone Jr. of New Jersey, who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said they were troubled by reports that administration officials are considering narrowing the CDC’s mission and embedding more political appointees at the Atlanta-based agency.

Traditionally the CDC has one political appointee, the director. Now it has Redfield and five other political appointees, including two advisers who were added in recent weeks.

“Now more than ever, the American people need a robust and effective CDC that is not repeatedly undermined by others in the administration, including the President and the Vice President,” the letter said.

White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows views the agency as a problem and has criticized the CDC repeatedly to other administration officials, said a senior administration official.

White House and HHS officials are discussing what the CDC’s “core mission needs to be,” said one adviser familiar with the talks who spoke on the condition of anonymity to comment on policy deliberations. The discussions were first reported by Politico.

Over the years, the agency that was founded to fight malaria now works on virtually every aspect of public health. “It has tried to be everything to everyone,” the adviser said, suggesting the agency might need to refocus more narrowly.

On the global front, administration officials are also weighing a $2.5 billion initiative called the President’s Response to Outbreaks that would move a significant portion of national and international pandemic responses to the State Department, according to a draft obtained by The Post. Details were first reported by Devex.

“There is no clear leadership role for CDC” in this plan, said Jennifer Kates, a senior vice president for global health and HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “In global health, you need an engaged CDC.”

Taken together, the administration efforts seem “designed to position CDC to the margins,” said one federal health official who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation.

‘Boogeyman where there aren’t any’

The report that drew the email attack, accusing the agency of undermining the president, had provided detailed but incomplete information about pregnancy risks related to the coronavirus. It found pregnant women with covid-19 were more likely to be hospitalized, admitted to an intensive care unit, and to need ventilator support than infected women who are not pregnant.

The sender, Alexander, a specialist in health research methods, is a senior adviser to Michael Caputo, a longtime Trump ally who was recently appointed assistant HHS secretary for public affairs , which includes the CDC.

The email was directed to Redfield and Caputo.

Even amid the intense criticism of the agency, the email “crosses the line,” said the official, who was aware of the content.

Like all of the CDC’s reports, the analysis itself noted several limitations. One key one that researchers acknowledged was that they did not have data to indicate whether the pregnant women were hospitalized because of labor and delivery, or because they had covid-19.

Administration officials are “seeing political boogeymen where there aren’t any,” the federal health official said, adding that such narratives could further hamper the U.S. response.

“It could feed the fire to limit the flow of scientific data and communication to the general population,” the official said. “People are getting sick and dying. Can we just focus on the science?”

Alexander said in his email that the lack of data about why women were hospitalized was a “key issue.”

“The CDC is undermining the President by what they put out, this is my opinion and sense, and I am reading it and can see the subtle and direct hits,” he wrote.

Alexander, also a part-time assistant professor at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, did not respond to emails and telephone calls seeking comment.

Caputo said in an interview that he agreed with Alexander. The CDC represents itself as the gold standard for public health agencies, he said, “but in the case of pregnancy analysis, it wasn’t even bronze.”

He called CDC’s track record “spotty” and “questionable,” pointing to Zika diagnostic testing errors in 2016.

“In many cases over the years, regardless of administration, the CDC has undermined presidents and themselves,” Caputo said, referring to leaked drafts of CDC guidances. “Who says the CDC is the sole font of wisdom when it comes to detecting and fighting deadly pathogens?”

Experts say that even with some big unanswered questions, the pregnancy findings represent the best available evidence and are important. The lack of data reflects decades of long-neglected national surveillance on pregnancy.

“I don’t think this is frightening women,” said Denise Jamieson, who heads the obstetrics and gynecology department at Emory University and Emory Healthcare. True, the report “suffers from completeness of data,” she said. But now doctors can be more confident that pregnant women are more likely to have severe disease and use “this really important information” to counsel patients, she said.

 

 

Re-examining the delivery of high-value care through COVID-19

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/502851-examining-the-delivery-of-high-value-care-through-covid-19#bottom-story-socials

Re-examining the delivery of high-value care through COVID-19 ...

Over the past months, the country and the economy have radically shifted to unchartered territory. Now more than ever, we must reexamine how we spend health care dollars. 

While the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed challenges with health care in America, we see two overarching opportunities for change:

1) the under-delivery of evidence-based care that materially improves the lives and well-being of Americans and

2) the over-delivery of unnecessary and, sometimes, harmful care.

The implications of reallocating our health care spending to high-value services are far-ranging, from improving health to economic recovery. 

To prepare for coronavirus patients and preserve protective equipment, clinicians and hospitals across the country halted non-urgent visits and procedures. This has led to a substantial reduction in high-value care: emergency care for strokes or heart attacks, childhood vaccinations, and routine chronic disease management. However, one silver lining to this near shutdown is that a similarly dramatic reduction in the use of low-value services has also ensued.

As offices and hospitals re-open, we have a once in a century opportunity to align incentives for providers and consumers, so patients get more high-value services in high-value settings, while minimizing the resurgence of low-value care. For example, the use of pre-operative testing in low-risk patients should not accompany the return of elective procedures such as cataract removal. Conversely, benefit designs should permanently remove barriers to high-value settings and services, like patients receiving dialysis at home or phone calls with mental health providers.   

People with low incomes and multiple chronic conditions are of particular concern as unemployment rises and more Americans lose their health care coverage. Suboptimal access and affordability to high-value chronic disease care prior to the COVID-19 pandemic was well documented  As financially distressed providers re-open to a new normal, hopeful to regain their financial footing, highly profitable services are likely to be prioritized.

Unfortunately, clinical impact and profitability are frequently not linked. The post-COVID reopening should build on existing quality-driven payment models and increase reimbursement for high-value care to ensure that compensation better aligns with patient-centered outcomes.

At the same time, the dramatic fall in “non-essential care” included a significant reduction in services that we know to be harmful or useless. Billions are spent annually in the US on routinely delivered care that does not improve health; a recent study from 4 states reports that patients pay a substantial proportion (>10 percent) of this tab out-of-pocket. This type of low-value care can lead to direct harm to patients — physically or financially or both — as well as cascading iatrogenic harm, which can amplify the total cost of just one low-value service by up to 10 fold. Health care leaders, through the Smarter Health Care Coalition, have hence called on the Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Azar to halt Medicare payments for services deemed low-value or harmful by the USPSTF. 

As offices and hospitals reopen with unprecedented clinical unmet needs, we have a unique opportunity to rebuild a flawed system. Payment policies should drive incentives to improve individual and population health, not the volume of services delivered. We emphasize that no given service is inherently high- or low-value, but that it depends heavily on the individual context. Thus, the implementation of new financial incentives for providers and patients needs to be nuanced and flexible to allow for patient-level variability. The added expenditures required for higher reimbursement rates for highly valuable services can be fully paid for by reducing the use of and reimbursement for low-value services.  

The delivery of evidence-based care should be the foundation of the new normal. We all agree that there is more than enough money in U.S. health care; it’s time that we start spending it on services that will make us a healthier nation.

 

 

 

The coronavirus is a moving target

https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-research-treatment-vaccines-aedfbf2c-cf09-4a36-ac99-2afb04298e5d.html

The coronavirus is a moving target for efforts to tackle it - Axios

Solutions for COVID-19 are being developed at the same time as knowledge about the disease evolves, a serious challenge for doctors treating patients and for researchers trying to create vaccines and treatments.

Why it matters: What was first thought of as a respiratory infection now appears much more complex, making efforts to tackle the disease more complicated.

“We’re laying the track as the train is moving and the train is coming very fast,” says Mark Poznansky, director of the Vaccine & Immunotherapy Center at Massachusetts General Hospital. “That is an extraordinary place to be at the global level.”

What’s happening: When the world first encountered COVID-19 four months ago, it was deemed a respiratory infection that hammers the lungs. That’s still the case but in recent weeks, clinicians have been reporting wide-ranging manifestations of the disease in some people.

  • Some of this could be that, with enough cases, there are outliers and anomalies. But that underscores that doctors and researchers are learning as they go.

Details: Renal failure, sepsis, damaged blood vessels, skin lesions, stroke, gastrointestinal problems and blood clots in the lungs and kidneys are being seen in some COVID-19 patients.

  • 20% of hospitalized patients in one study in Wuhan, China had heart damage.
  • 31% of people with the disease studied in a Danish ICU had blood clots.

“It comes across more as a systemic disease exhibited initially as a respiratory disease,” says Poznansky. It’s unclear whether the cause is the virus itself, the immune system’s response to it, or the treatment received.

That has implications for developing vaccines. The goal is to prevent infection but not exacerbate the immune effects in response to the virus.

  • “Is [a vaccine] protective or not in a context where we don’t know what exactly defines a protective immune response to COVID-19?” asks Poznansky.
  • The evolving understanding underscores the need to have multiple vaccines in development. (The current count is 123, per the Milken Institute’s tracker.)

What to watch: The changing percent of the disease will feature in regulatory discussions.

  • “This is the question companies will be discussing with regulators: which surrogate endpoints are acceptable as a proxy for going all the way to the worst possible outcomes in a patient?” says Phyllis Arthur, vice president of infectious diseases and diagnostics policy at biotech trade organization BIO.

The bottom line: Pandemics bring a potent mix of uncertainty and urgency to science that experts say requires both nimbleness and rigor to navigate.

  • “This is what a pandemic is like. It’s uncomfortable,” says Arthur. “You need to move swiftly and do good, solid, evidence-based, risk-benefit ratio assessments and understand what you know and don’t know, and make evidence based policy decisions knowing you don’t have perfect information.”

 

 

 

Administration’s Handling of Coronavirus Threatens a Long Unemployment Crisis

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2020/05/07/484795/trump-administrations-handling-coronavirus-threatens-long-unemployment-crisis/

The Trump Administration's Handling of Coronavirus Threatens a ...

On Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics will release employment numbers for April that are expected to show a tragic and historic increase in unemployment. Consensus estimates anticipate more than 20 million jobs lost and an unemployment rate of 16 percent—a figure that may well be an underestimate given that millions of people may not be looking for jobs, effectively exiting the labor force and reducing the labor force participation rate. Moreover, state-level unemployment claims data show that this economic pain is being felt across the country, with sharp rises in joblessness in every state. And Thursday’s jobless claims release suggests that job losses have continued at high levels since the April unemployment survey was taken.

While the immediate cause of this spike in joblessness is, of course, the necessary stay-at-home orders and social distancing measures taken to respond to the crisis, the rise in unemployment—and how long it lasts—cannot be separated from choices made by the Trump administration. In understanding the state of the economy, as well as what comes next, the following three elements of this crisis must be understood:

  1. The economic crisis we are facing—and the economic pain we expect in the months ahead—is the result of a failed public health response. The Trump administration ignored early warnings, misled the public, and made the coronavirus crisis worse. The fact that the administration bungled the testing regime early on in the crisis meant that the United States could never contain the virus, as other countries such as South Korea, New Zealand, and Taiwan have done. As a consequence of that failure, the United States has had to engage in social distancing that has meant economic shock in order to avoid significantly greater levels of infections and deaths. The depth and scope of the economic pain being felt is a consequence of the administration’s delayed response and complete failure take leadership during this crisis.
  2. The administration’s inability to put in place appropriate public health measures going forward—combined with its insistence that efforts to contain the virus should be lifted in the absence of those measures—is likely to not only prolong the public health crisis but also extend the economic pain. Rather than provide workers, businesses, and families the confidence that they can return to activity safely, the administration is taking steps that try to ignore the risk of infection, such as absolving employers of responsibility for worker safety through a liability shield or forcing workers to return to work even when they have concerns about their health. In this environment, we are likely to see decreased demand for some time to come because people will have little confidence in individual state reopening strategies disconnected from science—as we are already seeing across the country.
  3. By rejecting efforts that would support families, workers, and communities during this crisis, the administration and its allies in Congress are putting us on a path for continued double-digit unemployment even after the pandemic finally ends. Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the unemployment rate—absent additional action—will be near 10 percent at the end of 2021, several months after they project social distancing as a result of the health crisis abates. By opposing efforts to provide sufficient aid to states and localities; relief to families and unemployed workers; and assistance to those struggling the most, President Donald Trump, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and their allies are insisting on making this extended period of double-digit unemployment a reality.

There is an alternative path, however: Taking the necessary steps to address the public health crisis and ensure that people can go back to work safely and doing what is needed to address the immediate economic pain and avoid prolonged unemployment. As Congress and the administration consider an additional stimulus package, they should put in place necessary public health protections while providing robust aid to families, workers, and communities for as long as the crisis lasts. This will allow us to avoid double-digit unemployment from being a devastating reality for American families for the next year and a half or more.

Public health failures has driven unemployment up

The rise in unemployment over the past two months is a direct consequence of the public health crisis—one that could have taken a far less severe toll under an administration that had been better prepared for it and that had approached it more wisely. The Trump administration has failed to develop an evidence-based plan to end the coronavirus crisis. Instead, its mismanagement has resulted in widespread fear and uncertainty as to when it might be appropriate to reopen parts of the economy. President Trump did not take the pandemic seriously when cases first emerged in the United States; his administration failed to use the month of April—when the nation was largely shut down—to ramp up the testing, contact tracing, and other pieces necessary for the public health response. And now, Trump is pushing states to reopen too soon. Before people feel comfortable enough to once again venture out of their homes and reengage in work and other economic activities, we need to ensure the country has developed the necessary health infrastructure to allow us to gradually reopen our economy without sparking a second wave of infections.

The economic crisis cannot end until public health crisis is solved

The Trump administration and its allies are arguing that the way to solve the economic crisis is to open up the country, ending stay-at-home orders and engaging in aggressive efforts to force business to return to normal. But in the absence of public health measures that actually allow activity to return safely, the administration’s strategy appears to be one of “ignore and press on,” with potentially devastating results for workers and communities. This strategy includes:

  • Pushing communities to lift stay-at-home orders and other public health measures before sufficient testing, tracing, isolation and ongoing surveillance is in place
  • Forcing workers back on the job, even without sufficient personal protective equipment or workplace safety protections—whether by removing unemployment insurance for those who are recalled to unsafe situations or through executive actions such as those taken for the meatpacking industry
  • Proposing to absolve employers of the responsibility to keep workers and communities safe through blanket immunity from liability—a measure that would do nothing to keep workers safe or build confidence in economic reopening

These steps reflect an acceptance of elevated risks of transmission, and ultimately, death. And despite the president’s rhetoric, it will make it less likely that the economy can return faster.

First, it is clear that the public isn’t going to feel safe to return to normal economic activity absent additional public health measures. A recent Washington Post-University of Maryland poll found that “67 percent say they would be uncomfortable shopping at a retail clothing store, and 78 percent would be uncomfortable eating at a sit-down restaurant.” These results were similar both in states that had loosened restrictions and those that had not and is consistent with other data. As long as people are anxious that returning to normal activities could put them at risk of contracting the virus, the economy will be unable to recover.

Second, a strategy that fails to put in place the necessary protections against spreading the virus will increase transmission among the public, and especially workers, in ways that may force additional shutdowns and prolong the period of public health crisis. In sum, prolonged public health crisis equals a prolonged state of economic distress—extending the number of months with a job market like April’s. The best approach—an approach adopted by other countries who are faring better both with their health outcomes and their economic impacts—is a national plan to fight the virus that is based on testing, tracing, and isolation.

After the pandemic ends, double-digit unemployment will persist under the current course

The CARES act provided large, necessary relief to most Americans, including assistance for workers, families, and small businesses. But this assistance will run out before the economic emergency is behind us, forcing the economy into unnecessarily prolonged hardship.

Indeed, the measures in the CARES Act both leave important gaps and will expire long before the economy is expected to return to normal. States and localities are facing extreme budget shortfalls. If action is not taken before state budget deadlines on July 1, states are likely to begin implementing layoffs of teachers and first responders and service cuts in the coming months that will cause additional job loss. Expanded unemployment insurance benefits expire at the end of July, removing an important lifeline for those out of work. While the direct payments in the CARES Act provided important assistance to families, the $1,200 per person payment will not be enough to sustain households through a prolonged crisis. The initial Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) support for small businesses has run out, and a second round of funding may soon run out too. And in important areas such as housingfood assistancechild care, and health coverage, among others, the CARES Act failed to do enough to address the hardship being felt today, let alone over a prolonged crisis—even as it provided generous aid to corporations.

As a result, under baseline projections—those that assume no further action on the part of the government—double-digit unemployment is expected to be a feature of the economy for at least the next year and a half. As noted above, the CBO estimates that the unemployment rate will remain near 10 percent at the end of 2021—many months after they predict that social distancing due to the pandemic itself ends.

Yet the Trump administration and congressional Republicans have indicated that they are prepared to accept this reality, or at best, offer solutions that do nothing to shift it. White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett said that another round of coronavirus relief legislation might not be necessary, and chief economic adviser Larry Kudlow said on Sunday that nothing has been decided yet and that “there’s kind of a pause period right now” and that “we will wait and see.” Senator McConnell has dismissed state and local aid as a “blue state bailout,” despite pain being felt in all states.

To the extent the administration or its allies have signaled a desire to act, they have focused on measures that would be woefully insufficient to address the economic challenges we face. Aside from the liability shield, Trump has signaled a push for poorly targeted corporate tax cuts or a payroll tax cut that would fail to benefit those who are out of work. An illustrative example of Trump’s approach is his call for removing limits on corporate deductions for meals and entertainment—effectively allowing companies to deduct expenses for sports tickets, golf trips, or visits to casinos—which would provide a benefit to corporations and their wealthiest executives but do little to help put money in the hands of those who need it.

A better path: a response that meets the public health and economic challenge

As it considers another package to address this crisis, Congress has the opportunity to take a path that rejects double-digit unemployment as a lasting feature of this crisis. The approach Congress should take would allow economic activity to restart safely and ensure that, as the economy restarts, we are actually getting people back to work rather than accepting a recession that keeps millions unemployed.

First, that requires a sufficient public health response. The purpose of stay-at-home orders in the first place was to suppress transmission to low levels and buy time to put in place extensive testing and contact tracing programs, but we have yet to meet those goals. Nationally, we still need to increase our testing capacity and reach at least 500,000 tests a day; scale up contact tracing—both manually and by apps that meet privacy standards—in order to isolate people who test positive as well as their contacts; and have in place a far more robust disease surveillance system.

And second, it requires an economic response that offers relief that both addresses immediate pain that families, small businesses, and communities are facing and is sufficient to build back to a stronger economy.

In particular, the package must be:

  1. At a scale necessary to address the crisis. We need to pursue a fiscal response that is proportional to both the public health and economic threat posed by COVID-19. The economic consequences of this crisis are staggering. Children are going hungry; households are piling massive debts; millions of homeowners are delaying their mortgage payments; small businesses in hard hit states received fewer loans than others; minority small business owners are struggling to stay open; and state and local governments are preparing for significant layoffs of teachers and first responders in the absence of federal aid. Action needs to be sufficiently large to both address the immediate hardship that families are facing and get the economy back to work. This big push for aid has to be coordinated at the national, state, and local levels. An important lesson form the Great Recession was that austerity at the level of states and localities was a key factor in delaying economic recovery for years, since states were in austerity mode from 2008 until 2012, contributing to lower GDP growth. And, in contrast to concerns raised by some congressional Republicans—concerns that were absent during the passage of nearly $2 trillion in tax cuts in 2017—we have the fiscal capacity to respond robustly, especially with interest rates near zero. Indeed, evidence suggests that increased fiscal stimulus may increase fiscal sustainability.
  2. Sustained for the duration of the crisis. Relief must be sustained, automatic, and available with certainty for as long as it is needed. We should learn from the Great Recession, when stimulus was insufficient and removed too soon. During that crisis, unemployment insurance expired for many workers long before the crisis had passed; fiscal aid ended long before state and fiscal budget cuts ceased being a drag on the recovery. Key measures to support the economy, such as unemployment insurance, state and local aid, and direct relief to families, should automatically extend for the duration of the economic crisis—ensuring that we are providing sufficient relief and necessary stimulus as long as is needed to support a robust recovery.
  3. Targeted to all the areas where Americans are feeling economic hardship. There is no silver bullet that will bring the economy back. We need a multilayered attack that addresses the root cause of the problem—the spread of the virus—and ameliorates its symptoms in the form of hardship for families, workers, small businesses, and communities. Building off the CARES Act, additional aid needs to make sure it is reaching those who have been excluded. That requires ensuring that aid is more completely available—for example, ensuring that immigrant families can access needed relief or closing loopholes that prevent workers from having access to paid leave. It also means providing much needed assistance in areas such as food assistance, child care, housing, and for people with disabilities—areas that would both address concentrated harm and support the economy going forward. Finally, the package should be designed so that—rather than exacerbating structural problems in our economy that benefited corporations over workers—it puts us on a path for a stronger economy once the crisis ends.

The administration and its allies appear content to accept a prolonged period of public health and economic harm that is a result of the mismanagement of the COVID-19 crisis to date—essentially condemning the nation to a greater toll from the virus itself and a much longer period of economic distress. It must be clear that the harsh reality of the April jobs report—and the much broader pain that has been felt over recent weeks—was the result of both failed policy decisions and mismanagement. By the same token, we have the choice going forward as to whether we accept further pain or take steps that would both keep people healthy and get Americans back to work.