Amelia Janaskie
David Waugh – February 7, 2022 @ American Institute for Economic Research
Twisting the truth is our current Federal Government’s modus operandi. Look no further than White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki’s latest political gymnastics when she claimed, “We’ve not been pro-lockdown – most of the lockdowns actually happened under the previous President.”
While technically true (most actual lockdowns happened in America under Trump), the reality is that Biden praised pro-lockdown governors like Andrew Cuomo of NY, deified lockdown advocate Anthony Fauci as “America’s scientist,” and insisted throughout his 2020 campaign that lockdowns were necessary.
While our government officials may struggle with cognitive dissonance, Americans are taking notice as their trust in the federal government continues to plummet.
The Biden Administration aside, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention’s (CDC) approach to the pandemic has been concerning,
especially regarding its ability to offer reliable information to the
public. The latest example of this trend occurs in a misleading
infographic, which if taken at face value, conveys that wearing a cloth
mask provides 56 percent more protection than no mask at all.
The CDC cites the results from its new study
on masking, which states that “wearing a cloth mask (aOR = 0.44; 95
percent CI = 0.17–1.17) was associated with lower adjusted odds of a
positive test compared with never wearing a face covering but was not
statistically significant.” If one looks closely at the infographic, the
hash symbol at the bottom indicates the results for cloth masks are
“not statistically significant.”
Even though the CDC is technically honest in reporting this fact on
the infographic, the situation still raises the question: if it admits
in fine print that its infographic isn’t backed by reliable evidence,
then why are they publishing it in the first place? Moreover, if the
evidence suggests that wearing cloth masks has no statistically
significant relationship with reducing the probability of testing
positive, then why does the CDC continue to say we should use them?
Vinay Prasad, Professor of Epidemiology at the University of California, San Francisco, echoes this sentiment, scrutinizing
the rigor of the study itself. According to Prasad, there are multiple
issues with how the researchers conducted the survey, including
significant response and selection bias. In a Cato working paper, Prasad, along with other researchers, highlights the main concern with broadcasting flawed research:
Although weak evidence should not
preclude precautionary actions in the face of unprecedented events such
as the Covid-19 pandemic, ethical principles require that the strength
of the evidence and best estimates of amount of benefit [should] be
truthfully communicated to the public.
Unfortunately, this behavior is typical for the CDC, which has debased itself to the level of partisan media outlets that spin the results
of medical studies. Admitting that cloth masks don’t reduce the odds of
testing positive would disrupt its existing narrative and result in
political uproar against the CDC from the public and other highly
influential groups, such as the Biden Administration and teachers
unions.
Relenting on its stance will further erode the CDC’s recommendation
for universal masking in schools, enraging teachers unions, who we know influenced its school mask guidance. Despite the growing evidence against masks, the CDC is intent on maintaining its position on school masking.
According to its official mission,
the CDC “serves as the national focus for developing and applying
disease prevention and control, environmental health, and health
promotion and health education activities designed to improve the health
of the people of the United States.” Since the beginning of the
Covid-19 pandemic, there have been many cases in which the CDC stepped
outside its mission.
We must not forget the eviction moratorium.
On September 4th, 2020, the CDC, citing the need to control Covid,
stopped landlords from evicting tenants. The data backing this argument
was shoddy, and the moratorium was later deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
In addition to controlling landlords, the CDC also ignores research
that opposes its position on the robustness of natural immunity.
According to famed Johns Hopkins researcher Marty Makary, the results of
the latest data on reinfection rates demonstrated
that “natural immunity was 2.8 times as effective in preventing
hospitalization and 3.3 to 4.7 times as effective in preventing Covid
infection compared with vaccination.”
Yet, the CDC spun the truth when reporting on this study. They claimed
“vaccination remains the safest strategy for averting future SARS-CoV-2
infections, hospitalizations, long-term sequelae, and death,” based on a
comparison between hybrid immunity (combination of prior infection and
vaccination) with natural immunity. They did not clarify what the
study’s results actually show: that vaccination does not significantly
reduce the risk of hospitalization for those with natural immunity.
But why would they? These findings directly dispute the position held
by the CDC and the Biden administration. The current CDC Director
Rochelle Walensky will not budge on her position either. In October of
2020, she signed the John Snow Memorandum, which still states “there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection.”
The Game Is Up
The American people can sense the lies. Their trust in the CDC is falling.
Its lack of transparency damages public health in the long run,
hindering its ability to provide effective messaging during future
health emergencies.
If they want the trust of the American people, they have to work harder to regain it. Unfortunately, the CDC is beholden to special interest groups, which leads it to renege on its mission of providing accurate public health recommendations. The CDC faces incentives
that prompt it to follow the concentrated interests of special interest
groups at the cost of providing reliable information to the public.
The CDC’s actions have completely bewildered the American people. If
it continues down this road, it will only erode what little credibility
it has left.
Amelia Janaskie is a Research Associate at the American Institute for Economic Research.
She graduated from the College of Charleston Honors College in May 2020 with a B.S. in Economics and minor in English.
During her time in college, she was a Market Process Scholar with the Center for Public Choice and Market Process.
Get notified of new articles from Amelia Janaskie and AIER.
David Waugh joined AIER in 2020 and
currently works as the Managing Editor. He is a Don Lavoie Fellow with
the Mercatus Center and he previously worked as an associate for S&P
Global Market Intelligence.
David is a graduate of Hampden-Sydney College where he received a BA
in Economics. While at Hampden-Sydney, he was a Senior Fellow with the
Center for the Study of Political Economy and worked in the Economics
department as a teaching assistant.
Get notified of new articles from David Waugh and AIER.
