adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Politics

Former CDC Director Discusses Balancing Science And Politics In Pandemic Response – NPR

Published

 on


Following new guidance on masks, Scott Simon talks with former CDC director Dr. Tom Frieden about how the agency has balanced science with the politics of the pandemic.



SCOTT SIMON, HOST:

300x250x1

Of course, this week’s recommendation on masking from the CDC differs from what the agency had said previously. Tom Frieden directed the CDC during the Obama administration and was New York City’s health commissioner before that. He now leads the public health organization Resolve to Save Our Lives (ph) and joins us. Dr. Frieden, thanks so much for being with us.

TOM FRIEDEN: Great to speak with you, Scott.

SIMON: We just heard, of course, from Maria Godoy about the risks of a vaccine-resistant version of the virus emerging. How worried are you about that?

FRIEDEN: Vaccines protect us, and unless we’re not careful, we won’t be good at protecting vaccines. I think the thing that makes me most concerned about the future in terms of the virus changing is the possibility that there will be strains that are more resistant to vaccination. We don’t know for sure how possible that is, but it’s clear that some of the strains out there – in fact, the beta strain, for one of them, is somewhat resistant to vaccination. But we have to keep coming back to the bottom line, which is that the vaccines that we’re using in this country are stunningly effective. They’re saving tens of thousands of lives, and they are our way to end the pandemic.

SIMON: Doctor, I wonder what you’d say to people who say, look; a few months ago, the CDC said that those who’ve been vaccinated can remove their masks, now they say they can’t or shouldn’t remove their masks, so why bother to get vaccinated? What good does it do?

FRIEDEN: Vaccination is still the best way to save your life. If you get vaccinated, your risk of getting the infection, of spreading it to others, of getting very sick and especially of dying is drastically reduced. Now, in this country, there are different groups that are hesitant to get vaccinated. And the key, I think, is to listen to what the concerns are in each group and then to figure out what are the messengers, what are the messages, what are the incentives, positive and negative, that are going to get people vaccinated because vaccination is essential to get our jobs, our economy, our schooling, our society back.

SIMON: Dr. Frieden, when the CDC issues guidelines, some kind of directive, who does that? Take us in the room.

FRIEDEN: Well, first, it’s not a directive. They really are guidelines and recommendations. The CDC has very little regulatory authority – a little bit on quarantine and things like that. But generally, they are recommendations that are going to go to state and local health departments, to health care providers, doctors and hospitals, and to the general public. That would start with someone who is a super expert in that area and a team of people drafting a recommendation, looking at the best available science. It would then go through various levels of review within CDC and ultimately be signed off by the people running the response or the emergency, as well as the director – Dr. Walensky at this time.

SIMON: Do any politicians get their thumbs on it?

FRIEDEN: You know, Scott, it’s an interesting dynamic. I think it’s very clear that in the prior administration, there was totally inappropriate meddling with CDC guidance, development and publication. I’m not certain, but I have the sense that in the current administration, at the current time, it may have even gone too far in the other direction. They’re so determined to be clear that they’re not involved that there isn’t the kind of discussion that’s sometimes helpful. And what I found very helpful, ironically, particularly when Ron Klain was the Ebola czar, was that Ron would convene meetings for people to give input. It was always 100% clear that it was up to CDC to make the recommendations, but sometimes we heard interesting feedback and concerns and suggestions from other parts of the government. The final decision on what to recommend scientifically was with CDC. The final policy call is really in Washington, not CDC, if…

SIMON: Yeah.

FRIEDEN: …The government decides something to do or not do on a policy basis.

SIMON: And is it hard to separate a policy decision from at least some consideration of the political aspects?

FRIEDEN: There’s no doubt that politics plays a major role in public health decisions. You sometimes hear people say, let’s get the politics out of public health. Well, public health is the activity of communities getting safer and healthier. And there are many political decisions that happen during that process. What’s problematic is when partisanship gets in the way because there really shouldn’t be a Democratic or Republican way to control pandemics. There should be a scientific way or a way that ignores the science, and let’s choose the scientific way.

SIMON: Dr. Frieden, we’ve got a little over 30 seconds left, so I’m going to ask you an impossible question to answer. When will this be over globally? Can you foresee an end?

FRIEDEN: Globally, this will not be over until we drastically increase the production of vaccines. We’re falling far behind, particularly with the most promising vaccines, the mRNA vaccines. Until we get at least 70%, 80% of the world vaccinated, the risk of more dangerous variants, the disruption to our society, to travel, to trade and avoidable deaths are going to continue to propagate this pandemic and raise the possibility of an even worse strain emerging.

SIMON: Dr. Tom Frieden, who’s now CEO of Resolve to Save Our Lives (ph). Thanks so much, Doctor.

FRIEDEN: Thank you, Scott.

Copyright © 2021 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Politics

GOP strategist reacts to Trump’s ‘unconventional’ request – CNN

Published

 on


GOP strategist reacts to Trump’s ‘unconventional’ request

Donald Trump’s campaign is asking Republican candidates and committees using the former president’s name and likeness to fundraise to give at least 5% of what they raise to the campaign, according to a letter obtained by CNN. CNN’s Steve Contorno and Republican strategist Rina Shah weigh in.


03:00

– Source:
CNN

Adblock test (Why?)

300x250x1

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Anger toward federal government at 6-year high: Nanos survey – CTV News

Published

 on


Most Canadians in March reported feeling angry or pessimistic towards the federal government than at any point in the last six years, according to a survey by Nanos Research.

Nanos has been measuring Canadians’ feelings of optimism, satisfaction, disinterest, anger, pessimism and uncertainty toward the federal government since November 2018.

The latest survey found that optimism had crept up slightly to 10 per cent since hitting an all-time low of eight per cent in September 2023.

300x250x1

However, 62 per cent of Canadians said they feel either pessimistic or angry, with respondents equally split between the two sentiments.

(Nanos Research)

“What we’ve seen is the anger quotient has hit a new record,” Nik Nanos, CTV’s official pollster and Nanos Research founder, said in an interview with CTV News’ Trend Line on Wednesday.

Only 11 per cent of Canadians felt satisfied, while another 11 per cent said they were disinterested.

Past survey results show anger toward the federal government has increased or held steady across the country since March 2023, while satisfaction has gradually declined.

Will the budget move the needle?

Since the survey was conducted before the federal government released its 2024 budget, there’s a chance the anger and pessimism of March could subside a little by the time Nanos takes the public’s temperature again. They could also stick.

The five most important issues to Canadians right now that would influence votes, according to another recent Nanos survey conducted for Bloomberg, include inflation and the cost of living, health care, climate change and the environment, housing affordability and taxes.

(Nanos Research)

With this year’s budget, the federal government pledged $52.9 billion in new spending while promising to maintain the 2023-24 federal deficit at $40.1 billion. The federal deficit is projected to be $39.8 billion in 2024-25.

The budget includes plans to boost new housing stock, roll out a national disability benefit, introduce carbon rebates for small businesses and increase taxes on Canada’s top-earners.

However, advocacy groups have complained it doesn’t do enough to address climate change, or support First Nations communities and Canadians with disabilities.

“Canada is poised for another disastrous wildfire season, but this budget fails to give the climate crisis the attention it urgently deserves,” Keith Brooks, program director for Environmental Defence, wrote in a statement on the organization’s website.

Meanwhile, when it comes to a promise to close what the Assembly of First Nations says is a sprawling Indigenous infrastructure gap, the budget falls short by more than $420 billion. And while advocacy groups have praised the impending roll-out of the Canada Disability Benefit, organizations like March of Dimes Canada and Daily Bread Food Bank say the estimated maximum benefit of $200 per month per recipient won’t be enough to lift Canadians with disabilities out of poverty.

According to Nanos, if Wednesday’s budget announcement isn’t enough to restore the federal government’s favour, no amount of spending will do the trick.

“If the Liberal numbers don’t move up after this, perhaps the listening lesson for the Liberals will be (that) spending is not the political solution for them to break this trend line,” Nanos said. “It’ll have to be something else.”

Conservatives in ‘majority territory’

While the Liberal party waits to see what kind of effect its budget will have on voters, the Conservatives are enjoying a clear lead when it comes to ballot tracking.

(Nanos Research)

“Any way you cut it right now, the Conservatives are in the driver’s seat,” Nanos said. “They’re in majority territory.”

According to Nanos Research ballot tracking from the week ending April 12, the Conservatives are the top choice for 40 per cent of respondents, the Liberals for 23.7 per cent and the NDP for 20.6 per cent.

Whether the Liberals or the Conservatives form the next government will come down, partly, to whether voters believe more government spending is, or isn’t, the key to helping working Canadians, Nanos said.

“Both of the parties are fighting for working Canadians … and we have two competing visions for that. For the Liberals, it’s about putting government support into their hands and creating social programs to support Canadians,” he said.

“For the Conservatives, it’s very different. It’s about reducing the size of government (and) reducing taxes.”

Watch the full episode of Trend Line in our video player at the top of this article. You can also listen in our audio player below, or wherever you get your podcasts. The next episode comes out Wednesday, May 1.

Methodology

Nanos conducted an RDD dual frame (land- and cell-lines) hybrid telephone and online random survey of 1,069 Canadians, 18 years of age or older, between March 31 and April 1, 2024, as part of an omnibus survey. Participants were randomly recruited by telephone using live agents and administered a survey online. The sample included both land- and cell-lines across Canada. The results were statistically checked and weighted by age and gender using the latest census information and the sample is geographically stratified to be representative of Canada. The margin of error for this survey is ±3.0 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

With files from The Canadian Press, CTV News Senior Digital Parliamentary Reporter Rachel Aiello and CTV News Parliamentary Bureau Writer, Producer Spencer Van Dyke

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

The MAGA Right is Flirting With Political Violence – Vanity Fair

Published

 on


Tom Cotton is encouraging vigilantism, and Kari Lake is urging supporters to “strap on a Glock.”

April 17, 2024

300x250x1

Image may contain Tom Cotton Face Head Person Photography Portrait Adult Formal Wear Accessories Tie and People

Tom Cotton speaks at a press conference in December 2023.Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

The MAGA right exists in a perpetual state of overheated grievance. But as the November election nears, the temperature seems to be rising, getting dangerously high.

This week, following Gaza war protests that disrupted travel in major American cities Monday, Senator Tom Cotton explicitly called on Americans to “take matters into [their] own hands” to get demonstrators out of the way. Asked to clarify those comments Tuesday, Cotton stood by them, telling reporters he would “do it myself” if he were blocked in traffic by demonstrators: “It calls for getting out of your car and forcibly removing” protestors,” he said.

X content

This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.

The right-wing senator’s comments came on the heels of Kari Lake, the GOP candidate for Senate in Arizona, suggesting supporters should arm themselves for the 2024 election season. “The next six months is going to be intense,” she said at a rally Sunday. “And we need to strap on our—let’s see, what do we want to strap on? We’re going to strap on our seat belt. We’re going to put on our helmet or your Kari Lake ballcap. We are going to put on the armor of God. And maybe strap on a Glock on the side of us, just in case.”

And those comments came a couple weeks after Donald Trump, who regularly invokes apocalyptic and violent rhetoric, shared an image on social media depicting President Joe Biden—his political rival—hog-tied in the back of a pick-up truck. “This image from Donald Trump is the type of crap you post when you’re calling for a bloodbath or when you tell the Proud Boys to ‘stand back and stand by,’” a Biden spokesperson told ABC News last month, referring to the former president’s dog-whistle to extremist groups during a 2020 debate and to cryptic remarks he’s made from rally stages this spring suggesting Biden’s reelection would mean a “bloodbath”—for the auto industry and for the border. This kind of thing is nothing new—not for Trump, not for his allies, and not in American history, which is what makes these flirtations with political violence all the more dangerous.

We’ve seen where this kind of reckless rhetoric can lead. Throughout Trump’s first campaign for president, it led to eruptions of violence at his rallies, which he openly encouraged: “Knock the crap out of ‘em, would you?” he told supporters of hecklers. It also inflamed tensions throughout his presidency, which culminated with his instigating a violent insurrection at the United States Capitol. According to a PBS Newshour/NPR/Marist poll this month, 20 percent of Americans believe violence may be necessary to get the country on track. A disturbing new study out of University of California-Davis found openness to political violence was even higher among gun owners, particularly those who own assault weapons, recently purchased their firearms, or carry them in public. And an October survey by the Public Religion Research Institute and the Brookings Institution suggested that support for political violence, while still limited, appears to be increasing, with nearly a quarter of respondents overall—and a third of Republicans—agreeing with the statement: “Patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country.”

“It looks like the temperature has gone up across the board, but especially among Republicans,” Robert P. Jones, president and founder of PRRI, told Axios of the survey last fall. That’s no accident. It’s the kind of political climate you get when a sitting senator promotes vigilantism, a Senate candidate calls on supporters to take up arms, and a major party embraces or enables a demagogue. “Political violence,” as Biden campaign communications director Michael Tyler put it a couple weeks ago, “has been and continues to be central to Donald Trump’s brand of politics.”

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending