Read on Twitter
I'm reading this article right now and I'm pretty glad I have a drink in hand because good God this is confirming all worst suspicions. https://twitter.com/shearm/status/1284550928318824450
What strikes me more than anything as I read through this is how *obvious* it was - even at the time - that they were wrong.
For all Birx's claims about relying on the data, she wasn't actually doing so. She was cherry-picking the sources that most affirmed Trump's preferences.
For all Birx's claims about relying on the data, she wasn't actually doing so. She was cherry-picking the sources that most affirmed Trump's preferences.
Take the IHME model, which was predicting the worst had passed. Birx seized on these forecasts and repeatedly relied on that model in press conference.
But it was a deeply, deeply flawed model, as many pointed out at the time: https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1284602707949441029?s=20
But it was a deeply, deeply flawed model, as many pointed out at the time: https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1284602707949441029?s=20
There was no sound *scientific* rationale for choosing to rely heavily on the IHME model; it had huge prima facie limitations and flaws.
BUT its predictions were *politically* helpful to the White House; so Birx relied on it rather than a plethora or more pessimistic models.
BUT its predictions were *politically* helpful to the White House; so Birx relied on it rather than a plethora or more pessimistic models.
Or take the White House reopening guidelines, which Birx largely drafted.
With these too, it was evident from the outset that these were driven more by the President's political aims than by a clear-eyed assessment of what it would take to control the outbreak.
With these too, it was evident from the outset that these were driven more by the President's political aims than by a clear-eyed assessment of what it would take to control the outbreak.
As I wrote at the time, the guidelines were hugely flawed. They put all responsibility on states, and the thresholds for reopening were far, far too lax.
We now know what was suspected at the time: the motive for this was political, not scientific. https://twitter.com/JeremyKonyndyk/status/1251007627984805890?s=20
We now know what was suspected at the time: the motive for this was political, not scientific. https://twitter.com/JeremyKonyndyk/status/1251007627984805890?s=20
As the NYT report makes clear, the WH's agenda was to shift political ownership of the problem onto states, and to lay a groundwork for Trump to press for reopening the economy.
And Birx developing reopening guidelines that aligned perfectly with those aims.
And Birx developing reopening guidelines that aligned perfectly with those aims.
And then of course, states with Trump-supporting governors plowed ahead with reopening in complete disregard of even these tepid guidelines.
I have been critical of Dr. Birx for quite a while.
For me the tipping point came three months ago, when she defended Trump's suspension of support to @WHO by claiming nonsensically that WHO hadn't told the world til March how transmissible the virus is. https://twitter.com/JeremyKonyndyk/status/1252442060273131520?s=20
For me the tipping point came three months ago, when she defended Trump's suspension of support to @WHO by claiming nonsensically that WHO hadn't told the world til March how transmissible the virus is. https://twitter.com/JeremyKonyndyk/status/1252442060273131520?s=20
That in turn came on the heels of her praising Trump for being very attentive to data and evidence, in the same period when he was regularly touting hydroxychloroquine (though in her defense, this was before the "maybe try injecting disinfectants" thing). https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1243556939369496576?s=20
I got pushback on that kind of criticism, because many people believed Birx was being strategic - flattering Trump in public so that she could influence him positively in private.
I never found that persuasive, but this report utterly demolishes that hypothesis.
I never found that persuasive, but this report utterly demolishes that hypothesis.
Rather then acting as an inside-the-tent teller of hard truths, Birx was telling her White House colleagues exactly what they preferred to hear: death counts are inflated, the worst is past, we will decline as precipitously as Italy.
Again, there was no evidence-based reason to make statements like these.
Italy had a FAR more stringent lockdown than we did - obvious to anyone with access to a newspaper. And they sustained it longer, and brought cases lower before reopening.
None of that was a mystery.
Italy had a FAR more stringent lockdown than we did - obvious to anyone with access to a newspaper. And they sustained it longer, and brought cases lower before reopening.
None of that was a mystery.
Dr. Birx has played an incredibly damaging role. To the many of us who respected her and expected better of her, it has been a heartbreaking shock.
She was seen by the White House and the public as a credible validator, and has squandered that credibility.
She was seen by the White House and the public as a credible validator, and has squandered that credibility.
In that sense she is worse than Azar, Pence, etc, who lacked that kind of credibility.
She used her validator platform not to tell hard truths to those audiences (as Fauci has) but rather to put a public health imprimatur on whatever best suited Trump's political preferences.
She used her validator platform not to tell hard truths to those audiences (as Fauci has) but rather to put a public health imprimatur on whatever best suited Trump's political preferences.
Perhaps it would have made no difference if she had been guided by science rather than politics.
Perhaps they would have sidelined her just as they sidelined Fauci.
But - perhaps not. Imagine if she'd taken a different tack.
Perhaps they would have sidelined her just as they sidelined Fauci.
But - perhaps not. Imagine if she'd taken a different tack.
It is clear that her White House colleagues valued her judgment and saw her approval as important.
What if she had used that leverage to argue that the worst wasn't past? That states were reopening too fast? That we didn't have enough testing?
What if she had used that leverage to argue that the worst wasn't past? That states were reopening too fast? That we didn't have enough testing?
I don't expect this group of political hacks to have good instincts on public health strategy. But you can imagine why they might convince themselves of unreasonably rosy scenarios, if Birx was validating them - which she was.
What's unknown is why.
Why would someone with her sterling track record set her reputation on fire for Trump?
Why would someone with such a legitimately deep belief in data and evidence suddenly jettison that in service of this President's political interests?
Why would someone with her sterling track record set her reputation on fire for Trump?
Why would someone with such a legitimately deep belief in data and evidence suddenly jettison that in service of this President's political interests?
I can't pretend to know.
But I think back often to what Fauci said early on about the heady temptations of telling the President what he wants to hear, rather than what he needs to hear.
"I've seen really good people do that."
Indeed.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/03/anthony-fauci-trump-coronavirus-crisis-118961
But I think back often to what Fauci said early on about the heady temptations of telling the President what he wants to hear, rather than what he needs to hear.
"I've seen really good people do that."
Indeed.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/03/anthony-fauci-trump-coronavirus-crisis-118961
