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.
But it was a deeply, deeply flawed model, as many pointed out at the time:
BUT its predictions were *politically* helpful to the White House; so Birx relied on it rather than a plethora or more pessimistic models.
And Birx developing reopening guidelines that aligned perfectly with those aims.
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.
I never found that persuasive, but this report utterly demolishes that hypothesis.
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.
She was seen by the White House and the public as a credible validator, and has squandered that 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.
Perhaps they would have sidelined her just as they sidelined Fauci.
But - perhaps not. Imagine if she'd taken a different tack.
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?
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?
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.
politico.com/news/2020/03/0…