Tonight’s “Special Report” with Bret Baier showed a very intense interview With Director Valensky of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Many topics about COVID-19 were covered in a short period of time, from variants to sheltering, outbreaks, schools to vaccines.
For those concerned about public health policy, this week is a shocking revelation. The CDC and health policy “experts” made indiscriminate statements without any reference data, but tonight I actually I have to ask myself-CDC actually understands this virus?
I will not think or say lightly.
In her interview, Dr. Wallensky made some basic misstatements about the virus, many of which are fundamentally inconsistent with broader research, including the research I included in my internal slides. wrote About earlier today.
Regarding this: Varensky assured Bayer and his audience that this was an internal slideshow. deck, Intends to personally show her a broad view of the latest data, and will never affect the blocking guidelines. Then, she contradictedly said that after providing her with this presentation, she made a decision about masking and directing changes. I was also shocked, especially after watching the entire interview, the data in these studies was presented to her in such a fragmented and inadequate way.
So that’s it. The decision was made after reviewing the data on these slides, but it has nothing to do with the data, and don’t expect her to claim that any data based on these decisions will be made public for anyone’s review. This does not seem to be a priority.
Dr. Walensky then threw the entire passive reporting system on COVID under the bus, pointing out that it was not enough, and they supported this through cohort studies.It’s fair to say that passive reporting has its drawbacks-but it’s definitely better than formulating a national policy based on a single COVID-19 outbreak in Massachusetts with a limited population. eventShe said that many data sets from all over the country and abroad support her decision. If the previous behavior is passable, we should not expect to see any behavior soon.
Bayer also asked her previous questions statement This week, she discussed the virus. It may be that there are only a few mutations in the “antigen escape” that scientists call, that is, the virus mutates outside the scope of the vaccine. Dr. Varensky emphasized in her previous statement, but did not take into account that virus mutations are not random. Some regions of the viral genome are more susceptible to mutations, and some regions are very conservative. The choice of the spike protein part of the vaccine target was purposefully selected, and very cautiously extremely unlikely to mutate-this means that the vaccine should continue to be effective, and studies have shown that it is effective against all variants of the virus.
In another part of the interview, Dr. Walensky stated that research in the past few months has shown that Alpha (one of the early versions of the virus) was proven not to be transmitted by vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections, while Delta variants appeared Can spread in breakthrough cases. This is obviously scientifically unreliable-not only there is no evidence that even this all-or-nothing assertion is supported remotely, but there is also no reliable biological basis to prove that the vaccine is effective against the two variants to prevent serious diseases , While only effectively preventing the spread of one variant. In a study cited in the internal presentation slide, it has been shown that the Delta variant is about 8-10 times less likely to be neutralized in vaccinated individuals than Alpha. This is far from enough to justify the sharp description drawn by Dr. Walensky.
After being asked whether to consider compulsory vaccination, Dr. Walensky resumed her usual indecision, stating that at this time it seems to be the prerogative of local and private companies, but they are definitely “investigating this option.” At the moment, the CDC seems to have nothing more than “investigating” things, no matter what that actually means-and it must be a bad substitute for action or science. Later, she retracted the statement, saying that she meant mask enforcement, not vaccine enforcement. If she did not explicitly mention vaccines in her response to Bayer, it would be easier to believe.
New: Varensky now says that she is talking about the private mask requirement and that after the interview, there will be no federal mask requirement @BretBaier – pass @Reuters
-Sean Langille (@SeanLangille) July 30, 2021
When asked whether there are clear data points and goals, we can never wear masks after this, Dr. Walensky continued to emphasize-basically means that all or most children’s vaccination will be necessary (but Is it enough? ). She also said that part of this is not only to protect the teachers, but also to protect the children returning home and family members with weakened immune functions. Of course, this sounds reasonable-except as early as before COVID-19, children have returned to homes with weakened immune functions and brought home various campus bacteria-many of them are immunosuppressed parents or family members It is more dangerous than COVID- 19.
Since Bayer raised the issue of allowing immigrants entering the southern border to enter without being vaccinated, and at the same time imposing strict restrictions on anyone trying to legally travel to the United States from abroad, Dr. Wallensky’s answer remains convincing. . In the common clichés of providing assistance, she stated that she cannot attribute all outbreaks to immigration, but instead reverts to her safety talking points about personal choice and vaccine hesitation.
Bayer ended with a softball question, asking which vaccine is best for combating the Delta variant. She denies that there are data showing that any kind of vaccine is better than another. Of course, this may shock those who prepared internal presentation slides and read the actual research-many of them concluded that the mRNA vaccine is more effective than other vaccines against Delta variants.
This is basic. This is something she should know, she claimed to have provided her with data earlier this week.
In this interview, watching Dr. Wallensky stumble on basic science-she claims to have introduced her to science only a few days ago-is creepy. Whatever the reason, the CDC is unable to follow up and communicate scientific findings, now is the time to take decisive measures and regain control of the conversation. Step 1: Stop asking her and introduce someone who has read relevant research, read more extensive data, can cite these data and answer these basic questions correctly.
The incompetence, indecision, and inadequacy shown by the CDC are causing positive harm. Every time Dr. Wallensky airs, not only does her credibility decline, but so does the vaccination work, testing, and the broader fight against COVID-19. It is easy to blame a group of people for the increase in COVID-19 infection rates and local resurgence, but if the CDC really wants to hold them accountable, it might be best to start at home.
