New @UCSUSA analysis: The public is hearing less from CDC scientists and more from the White House than in past infectious disease outbreaks. And it is costing the public. Here's some key finding from @anita_desikan's and my new work. ucsusa.org/resources/let-…
First, you might expect more communication for bigger outbreaks, but that hasn't been the case. Even though COVID cases have far outnumbered past epidemics, we've only heard as much from the CDC as we did on SARS (which only had 8 US cases) 
All those White House-led COVID briefings? Those aren't normal. Historically, CDC-led briefings have been the primary source of crisis communication during epidemics. Instead, under the Trump administration, CDC expertise is taking a back seat to White House communications.
It is striking to look at these communications over time. At first, we were hearing predominantly from the CDC, but as cases climbed and the crisis escalated, the White House took over, and we stopped hearing from the nation's infectious disease experts.
To be clear, it is good that administrations take an infectious disease outbreak seriously and we'd want to hear from presidents on a crisis of COVID's magnitude. But White House communications shouldn't come at the expense of communication from CDC scientists.
All of this is especially concerning in light of what we've already learned about White House interference at the CDC Here's the alarming findings of our 2018 survey of scientists at CDC and elsewhere.
Notably, this isn't partisan. As @anita_desikan points out in this post, past administrations of both parties took the threat of pandemics seriously and let CDC scientists lead in tackling it. This isn't about political points, it's about keep us all safe. blog.ucsusa.org/anita-desikan/…
