The CDC’s Massive Loss of
Credibility Is Partly Because of
the Spokespeople It Used

Since late February, the CDC has lost massive amounts of credibility for several reasons – all of which I never would have predicted in all my years of observing and sometimes interacting with CDC officials.

The most important failure is the unconscionable absence of one or two strong, warm, CDC experts acting as the top U.S. pandemic spokespersons. We needed someone who would have shown their own humanity, treated the public like grownups, shared the public’s anxiety, and validated the public’s skepticism and doubts. Plus of course keeping the public informed, and inspiring the public to unite in taking measures to reduce transmission and to support the government’s measures.

The minute one CDC expert started to do this after weeks of minimizing the risk – Nancy Messonnier at the CDC press conference on February 25 – she was shut down by the Trump administration, and after that we mostly got technocratic downplaying that “the risk here is low” while the virus quietly spread around the country in the absence of testing.

Obviously, the main spokesperson for the pandemic should have been Dr. Anne Schuchat, and with Dr. Nancy Messonnier as second-in-command. Dr. Schuchat is one of the most beautiful and talented infectious disease communicators I’ve ever seen – she is kind, incredibly empathic, believable, and inspiring. She both makes people feel taken care of, and inspires people to take care of themselves and to support what the government is doing. The world has watched the warmth and determination of New Zealand’s lovely PM Jacinda Ardern lead her country through the pandemic. From watching Dr. Schuchat over many years, I think she would have been even better. Everyone in the U.S. should know her name and her face, and look forward to her press conferences. Dr. Redfield does not inspire. He also comes across more as an extension of the executive branch, even though I know he cares passionately about giving the best advice.

In terms of communication, the CDC completely failed to apologize for the initial testing catastrophe which allowed the virus to spread invisibly for months. No matter how many agencies were involved in this failure, it was the CDC’s job to raise hell over the problem, demand urgent immediate solutions such as pushing the FDA to license or approve the purchase of other countries’ tests. And it was the CDC’s job to later – and repeatedly – admit with anguish and sorrow the wish that they had pushed harder and openly. I can easily see Dr. Schuchat doing this.

It requires a talented, warm, and trustworthy expert spokesperson to maintain the country’s trust through other twists and turns like the mask issue, and other changes or mistakes in recommendations, and to help the public see changes and apparent mistakes more in the context of the massive uncertainty and new knowledge along the way. Mistakes and changes in policy are inevitable. It takes communication skills and human warmth (and either communications training or incredible intuition) to help the public bear these mistakes and changes without losing too much confidence in the agency. We have been so lucky over the years to have someone like Dr. Schuchat to lead us through health crises. To lose her as the best CDC spokesperson, right at the start of the worst health crisis of my lifetime, was a tragedy. It shows catastrophic bad judgment on the part of senior officials at HHS to have pushed her aside.

Dr. Messonnier was on her way to developing a trusted relationship with reporters and the public when she was pushed aside. I don’t know how good she would have turned out, but the way she treated the public like grownups at her February 25 press conference suggests she would have been a great team with Dr. Schuchat.

The CDC never adequately explained the switch from no-masks to masks. It was dishonest or misleading to say in early April that “new evidence” about asymptomatic and presymptomatic spread led to the new recommendation. Lots of such spread, not to mention “presenteeism” – people with mild symptoms going about their normal activities – was becoming well known by late February. Combined with the President’s disdain for masks, the CDC’s sudden switch to recommending non-medical masks was another source of skepticism and doubt. A wonderful CDC spokesperson, who would have been well-liked and fairly well-trusted by April, could have helped the public make the shift to accepting masks without blaming the CDC too much for the switcheroo. Even with the President’s mockery.

It is an outrage and a tragedy that despite the existence of at least one highly experienced long-tested CDC expert spokesperson with proven reserves of credibility and trust, the government put before us CDC and HHS leaders who had not earned – and subsequently did not earn – our trust.