Kansas Crimson

NiceDC wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 12:49 pm If you’re going to a smash mouth concert in 2020, probably deserve the Rona

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 5:26 pm some folks need to check their history on what happened when polio vaccines were rushed to market

i’m constantly amazed at how ignorant, selfish and short-sighted some people are

Mjl wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 6:59 pm

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 2:16 pm Meh. I don't think he will be able to "hide" them. And tbh for most of us it is our local numbers that are the most important to pay attention to. Those numbers are released daily by our state health departments so it should be easy enough to catch him up when/if he tries to lie about the numbers (more/again/as usual). Our media is pretty good at catching him up in his lies, this wont be any different.

Really well said. The left wing hysteria on this is kinda ignorant.

The health department’s politically appointed communications aides have demanded the right to review and seek changes to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s weekly scientific reports charting the progress of the coronavirus pandemic, in what officials characterized as an attempt to intimidate the reports’ authors and water down their communications to health professionals.

In some cases, emails from communications aides to CDC Director Robert Redfield and other senior officials openly complained that the agency’s reports would undermine President Donald Trump's optimistic messages about the outbreak, according to emails reviewed by POLITICO and three people familiar with the situation.

CDC officials have fought back against the most sweeping changes, but have increasingly agreed to allow the political officials to review the reports and, in a few cases, compromised on the wording, according to three people familiar with the exchanges. The communications aides’ efforts to change the language in the CDC’s reports have been constant across the summer and continued as recently as Friday afternoon.
The CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports are authored by career scientists and serve as the main vehicle for the agency to inform doctors, researchers and the general public about how Covid-19 is spreading and who is at risk. Such reports have historically been published with little fanfare and no political interference, said several longtime health department officials, and have been viewed as a cornerstone of the nation's public health work for decades.

But since Michael Caputo, a former Trump campaign official with no medical or scientific background, was installed in April as the health department's new spokesperson, there have been substantial efforts to align the reports with Trump's statements, including the president's claims that fears about the outbreak are overstated, or stop the reports altogether.

Caputo and his team have attempted to add caveats to the CDC's findings, including an effort to retroactively change agency reports that they said wrongly inflated the risks of Covid-19 and should have made clear that Americans sickened by the virus may have been infected because of their own behavior, according to the individuals familiar with the situation and emails reviewed by POLITICO.

Caputo's team also has tried to halt the release of some CDC reports, including delaying a report that addressed how doctors were prescribing hydroxychloroquine, the malaria drug favored by Trump as a coronavirus treatment despite scant evidence. The report, which was held for about a month after Caputo’s team raised questions about its authors’ political leanings, was finally published last week. It said that "the potential benefits of these drugs do not outweigh their risks."

In one clash, an aide to Caputo berated CDC scientists for attempting to use the reports to "hurt the President" in an Aug. 8 email sent to CDC Director Robert Redfield and other officials that was widely circulated inside the department and obtained by POLITICO.

"CDC to me appears to be writing hit pieces on the administration," appointee Paul Alexander wrote, calling on Redfield to modify two already published reports that Alexander claimed wrongly inflated the risks of coronavirus to children and undermined Trump's push to reopen schools. "CDC tried to report as if once kids get together, there will be spread and this will impact school re-opening . . . Very misleading by CDC and shame on them. Their aim is clear."

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 9:51 am It doesn't help that many of the "cultists" live in smaller more rural areas that aren't nearly as impacted by the virus as larger metropolitan areas. My larger county has had 50ish deaths...many of the smaller surrounding counties around me have 0 deaths, almost all less than 5 (and unsurprisingly they are mostly elderly)....so to an extent i understand why they have a hard time agreeing many of their businesses should be closed or restricted.

With schools open in most areas around me i am just waiting for a big spike. Thankfully my daughter's school is remote only because we wouldn't be sending her anyway.

zsn wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 7:27 pm

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 9:51 am It doesn't help that many of the "cultists" live in smaller more rural areas that aren't nearly as impacted by the virus as larger metropolitan areas. My larger county has had 50ish deaths...many of the smaller surrounding counties around me have 0 deaths, almost all less than 5 (and unsurprisingly they are mostly elderly)....so to an extent i understand why they have a hard time agreeing many of their businesses should be closed or restricted.

With schools open in most areas around me i am just waiting for a big spike. Thankfully my daughter's school is remote only because we wouldn't be sending her anyway.

Your logic that sparsely populated areas are less susceptible falls apart rather quickly upon inspection of data. Per 1M population the Dakotas and California have similar numbers of confirmed cases, about 19,000 per million.

zsn wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 7:27 pm

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 9:51 am It doesn't help that many of the "cultists" live in smaller more rural areas that aren't nearly as impacted by the virus as larger metropolitan areas. My larger county has had 50ish deaths...many of the smaller surrounding counties around me have 0 deaths, almost all less than 5 (and unsurprisingly they are mostly elderly)....so to an extent i understand why they have a hard time agreeing many of their businesses should be closed or restricted.

With schools open in most areas around me i am just waiting for a big spike. Thankfully my daughter's school is remote only because we wouldn't be sending her anyway.

Your logic that sparsely populated areas are less susceptible falls apart rather quickly upon inspection of data. Per 1M population the Dakotas and California have similar numbers of confirmed cases, about 19,000 per million.