@scifri Virologist @angie_rasmussen claims CDC appears "compromised" and has lost "respect"

2020.9.4: news.pol/healthcare/covid-19/
@scifri Virologist @angie_rasmussen claims
CDC appears "compromised" and has lost "respect":

@scifri radio factchecker guest Virologist @angie_rasmussen
claims CDC appears "compromised" and has lost "respect"
after issuing #covid19 policy that seems
"politically motivated" rather than scientific:
stop testing asymptomatic people
even if they believe they've been exposed.

the radio segment is recorded here:
sciencefriday fact-check.
partial transcript:

. the CDC changed their guidelines for covid-19 testing:
stop testing asymptomatics (asymptomatic people)
even if they believe they've been exposed to the virus.

[ CDC (accessed 2020.9.4):
Most people do not require testing to decide
when they can be around others;
... the infected may have low levels of virus in their bodies
for up to 3 months after infection.
If you think you might have COVID-19,
it is important to stay home
and away from other people.
]-CDC
[ CDC's likely motive:
why even get tested when you are probably right,
and if you are right then you are infectious,
and you might infect others while trying to get tested;
so, skip testing and stay home!
. for example,
Dr. Michael Hochman:
( a primary care doctor and director of
the Gehr Family Center for
Health Systems Science and Innovation
at the University of Southern California)
. he thinks the value of testing
contacts without symptoms [asymptomatics]
is “modest”
and would rather make them stay home for 14 days
instead of come into a clinic for a test,
“which is bringing them together with other people,
the opposite of what you want.”

. also keep in mind there is a civil war;
the vast majority are healthy people
who are told to take great damage
in order to protect a few sickly people,
and the many elders who should simply admit
their time has come.
. the CDC might be placing less demands
on the pandemic control resistors.
]-CDC's likely motive.

. if your healthcare provider recommends testing,
they will let you know when you can resume being
around others based on your test results.
otherwise, You can be around others
10 days after symptoms first appeared
or 14 days after being exposed to known infection
and
24 hours with no fever without the use of fever-reducing medications
and
Other symptoms of COVID-19 are improving*
(although Loss of taste and smell may persist
for weeks or months after recovery
and need not delay the end of isolation.)
. Anyone who has had COVID-19
within the previous 3 months
and remains without COVID-19 symptoms
(for example, cough, shortness of breath)
does not need to stay home after being exposed again.

Aug. 24, 2020 policy on testing:
If you have been in close contact (within 6 feet)
of a person with a COVID-19 infection
for at least 15 minutes
but do not have symptoms:
You do not necessarily need a test
unless you are a vulnerable individual
or your health care provider
or local public health officials
recommend you take one.
A negative test does not mean you will
not develop an infection at a later time.
]-CDC

[ Caroline Chen 2020  September 4:
The revised guidance did not appear to be
generated internally by the CDC.
Adm. Brett Giroir, the federal testing czar,
told reporters that the recommendations
were approved by members of the
White House coronavirus task force.
]-Chen

. one CDC rep told one media reporter
they were not trying to conserve testing resources,
when they said asymptomatics need not get tested.
[ what other effect does it have? this:
. of those who are tested,
there will be a higher percentage positive cases.
. we will know less about who has the disease,
and less about who is spreading it,
and we will know more about sick people,
whether they have covid-19 or something else.
]

@angie_rasmussen opines:
. it is dangerous of the CDC to tell us
that asymptomatics should not seek testing,
because we know asymptomatics are a
major source of virus transmission.
. many have concluded that the CDC's motivation
is political rather than based on evidence
and good public health practices.
. has the CDC lost respect as a source of reliable info?
yes, but it's important to understand that
the CDC still has great scientists and epidemiologists;
doing research, and collating and publishing data;
the problem here is within the policy arm of CDC,
that appears to be more based on political considerations
than scientific evidence.
. it really does undermine their credibility.
... you can't trust that the CDC is providing
guidance that is based on the evidence.
. that causes you to question CDC motives.
I think "for many scientists
it's been tremendously disappointing
to realize that CDC, this premiere agency
for dealing with infectious disease threats,
is compromised in this way."

[my response:
. it is true that president Trump
seemed to discourage covid-19 testing;
and, he didn't like that asymptomatics
were being counted among the infected,
even when they were still a source
of viral transmission;
actually, he was annoyed that the media claimed
that Trump's nation had more viral infection
when his nation simply had more testing.
[forbes stephaniesarkis 2020.06]
. one purpose of testing of asymptomatics
is to convince them they need self-isolation
after being exposed to a known infection.
. also, contact tracing will hit a wall if
asymptomatics are not encouraged to get tested.
. who is going to self-isolate
just because they were near a possible case,
rather than a tested, sure case?
]-my response.

what other covid-19 news needs fact-checking?
". only 6% of deaths are due to the virus itself."
[ what the CDC actually said:
Comorbidities:
Table of Conditions contributing to deaths
involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19),
by age group, United States.
. shows the types of health conditions and contributing causes
mentioned in conjunction with deaths involving
coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
For 6% of the deaths,
COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned.
]
. @angie_rasmussen explains:
it's not true that they would have died of those things
anyways without covid-19.
. that's like saying an HIV patient died of cancer,
when in fact they got cancer only because they had HIV.
[my reaction: 
. this is not a good example, because
covid-19 is hospitalizing by far mostly those
with pre-existing medical conditions,
but even healthy people get cancer from HIV:
most healthy people do not die of covid-19.
. however the spirit of her message is true:
pre-existing conditions are a fact of life,
and covid-19 has meant an early death for them.
]

Shane Harris`The Watchers: 

The Rise of America's Surveillance State