The US could exceed 200,000 deaths from covid-19 in September 0:54
(CNN Spanish) -
In the United States, some sanitary measures to stop the spread of the coronavirus have been politicized.
A clear example is the use of masks.
Towards the end of August, a change in the guidelines of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the CDC, on the performance of molecular tests, generated unease in the scientific community.
In this episode, Dr. Elmer Huerta analyzes, from a scientific point of view, the consequences of these measures.
You can listen to this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your favorite podcast platform, or read the transcript below.
Hello, I am Dr. Elmer Huerta and this is your daily dose of information about the new coronavirus, information that we hope will be useful to take care of your health and that of your family.
Today we will see how - in the case of covid-19 - science and politics can be faced.
When the book on the history of this pandemic is written, I have no doubt that one of the longest chapters will be the one examining the role of politics.
In all the countries through which the pandemic has passed, it has been seen that the response of politicians to the virus has been very varied.
From the beginning, when the Chinese government was accused of political interference by suppressing the initial information about the outbreak in Wuhan, passing through European countries, where the political approach to the pandemic changed according to the party colors of the rulers, reaching Latin American countries, in which each nation has its own flats.
In this sense, two recent events in the United States reveal the enormous interference of politics on prestigious government entities, interference that could have serious consequences on the public health of the country.
The first happened the last week of August, when the CDC or Centers for Disease Prevention and Control of the United States abruptly changed their guidelines for the use of molecular tests that, as we know, are used to diagnose people who are carriers of the new coronavirus in your airways.
Until before that sudden change - which a senior official assured CNN had come from the highest levels of President Donald Trump's administration - the CDC recommended that if one person had been in contact with another who was later positive, it should be done - regardless of whether she had symptoms or not - a test to find out if she was infected and therefore initiate preventive measures.
The CDC amendment now says that a person who has been in contact with another infected person should be tested only if they show symptoms.
Various public health specialists have called attention to the fact that this measure threatens public health, because by restricting the tests only to people with symptoms, the opportunity to test 40% of infected people who do not have symptoms would be missing. symptoms, with which, infections would increase in the community.
Conveniently, however, the new directive aligns with a trend in White House rhetoric, in which President Trump has repeatedly suggested that the United States should do less testing.
The second fact is of equal or greater concern.
In an interview with The Financial Times, US Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn said on August 30 that the agency may consider authorizing or approving the emergency use of a vaccine against covid-19 before phase 3 trials are completed. And he added that his decision would be based on data and had no political intentions.
The reaction of the scientific community in the United States has not been long in coming.
A group of experts has proposed creating a vaccine review committee, independent from the FDA, to ensure that the data analysis is reliable.
Experts question the FDA's role against the 1:24 vaccine
The fear is that, if the public's distrust of the vaccine is already high, any perception that its approval is politically motivated could prevent the public from being vaccinated, which could hamper the ability to control the virus and return to the vaccine. normal.
In this regard, a poll conducted by CNN now in August revealed that 40% of Americans do not want to receive a coronavirus vaccine when it is available, even if it is free and easily accessible.
Returning, it should also be mentioned that, if adverse effects occur for approving a vaccine without having all the evidence of efficacy and safety, it could be used by the anti-vaccine movement as proof that they are not safe and should not be used.
On the other hand, many observers think that the early approval of a vaccine, before November 3, the date of elections in the United States, could be used as an electoral weapon for Trump's re-election.
There is no doubt that the combination of politics and science can be explosive.
Our advice is that you inform yourself from trusted sources, and whose reports are based on science and evidence.
Send me your questions on Twitter, we will try to answer them in our next episodes.
You can find me at @DrHuerta.
If you think this podcast is helpful, help others find it by rating and reviewing it on your favorite podcast app.
We will be back tomorrow so be sure to subscribe to get the latest episode on your account.
And for the most up-to-date information, you can always head to CNNEspanol.com.
Thanks for your attention.
If you have any questions you can send them to Dr. Elmer Huerta via Twitter. You can also head over to CNNE.com/coronaviruspodcast for all episodes of our “Coronavirus: Reality vs. Reality” podcast. fiction".
CDCcoronaviruscovid-19Coronavirus vaccine
