需要一致同意的学者型领导风格lz是从哪看出来的？这次疫情吗？目前来看既不学者也不领导，只会拖后腿呢。是从过去的经验吗？知道你英文不好帮你贴一下 In the 1980s and early 1990s, as an Army doctor stationed at Walter Reed Medical Center, Redfield worked on setting up protocols to handle service members infected with AIDS. Even by the standards of the era, when much was still unknown about the virus, his suggestions were controversial. He advocated quarantining infected soldiers, spreading their diagnosis across the chain of command with little concern for their privacy, and investigating their sexual histories. Redfield advocated similar ideas outside of the military, aligning himself with a conservative Christian group called Americans for a Sound HIV/AIDS Policy (ASAP) which supported similar steps in the general public In the 1990s, Redfield endorsed an unproven HIV vaccine as a huge breakthrough. It wasn’t, and Redfield was investigated for scientific misconduct for his role in continuing to push the vaccine. (He was later cleared of accusations of misconduct.) He also publicly lobbied for legislation sponsored by a conservative member of Congress that would force medical workers to get tested for HIV and AIDS and lose their licenses to practice if they were infected. More recently, in the early 2000s, Redfield remained adamant that the best way to contain the AIDS epidemic in Africa was to encourage abstinence, monogamy, and the use of condoms only as a last resort. Critics say that even as CDC officials have worked towards improving the agency’s handling of the current outbreak, Redfield has enabled Trump’s politicization of the government’s response.
这个不假，而且确实有报道提及有人对他需要一致同意的学者型领导风格不满，认为是出问题的原因之一。然而如果这是问题，显然有人不同意使得决策缓慢，是谁呢？还是没有报道。而且这里的有人多半还是第三方。 lylo 发表于 4/7/2020 12:18:00 AM
In the 1980s and early 1990s, as an Army doctor stationed at Walter Reed Medical Center, Redfield worked on setting up protocols to handle service members infected with AIDS. Even by the standards of the era, when much was still unknown about the virus, his suggestions were controversial. He advocated quarantining infected soldiers, spreading their diagnosis across the chain of command with little concern for their privacy, and investigating their sexual histories.
Redfield advocated similar ideas outside of the military, aligning himself with a conservative Christian group called Americans for a Sound HIV/AIDS Policy (ASAP) which supported similar steps in the general public
In the 1990s, Redfield endorsed an unproven HIV vaccine as a huge breakthrough. It wasn’t, and Redfield was investigated for scientific misconduct for his role in continuing to push the vaccine. (He was later cleared of accusations of misconduct.) He also publicly lobbied for legislation sponsored by a conservative member of Congress that would force medical workers to get tested for HIV and AIDS and lose their licenses to practice if they were infected. More recently, in the early 2000s, Redfield remained adamant that the best way to contain the AIDS epidemic in Africa was to encourage abstinence, monogamy, and the use of condoms only as a last resort.
Critics say that even as CDC officials have worked towards improving the agency’s handling of the current outbreak, Redfield has enabled Trump’s politicization of the government’s response.
“Mr. Azar’s take-charge style contrasted with the more deliberative manner of Dr. Redfield, who lacked the kind of commanding television presence that impressed Mr. Trump. He was “a consensus person,” as one colleague described him, who sought to avoid conflict. He relied heavily on some of the C.D.C.’s career scientists, like Dr. Schuchat and Dr. Nancy Messonnier, the director of the agency’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.”
原来是马甲，还在扯英文，LOL。我早就告诉过你，二月底以来这方面的报导我基本全看过， 这个评价是他同事的：以下来自NYT “Mr. Azar’s take-charge style contrasted with the more deliberative manner of Dr. Redfield, who lacked the kind of commanding television presence that impressed Mr. Trump.He was “a consensus person,” as one colleague described him, who sought to avoid conflict. He relied heavily on some of the C.D.C.’s career scientists, like Dr. Schuchat and Dr. Nancy Messonnier, the director of the agency’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.” https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/28/us/testing-coronavirus-pandemic.html lylo 发表于 4/7/2020 12:57:00 AM
至于fire，你去搜一下Trump fire list好吗？大概有老太太的裹脚布那么长。。。。。为什么cdc职员就这么牛x呢？因为他是Trump任命的啊！上台后2017年任命的第一个cdc director在被股票交易调查后在2018辞职，才做了几个月，这个Redfield并不很令大统领满意，但是就目前来看，还是很忠心的
Clinton administration 1993-2001.且不说全球化在那个时代是符合国家发展需要的，克林顿是在位期间经济发展最好的总统是公认的。就说时间线吧，这是二三十年前了，甩锅的弧线是不是有点长？？ 那我上面说的没错啊，就应该甩到几百年前华盛顿时期，建立美国体制的时候怎么就没想到会有3m事件呢？
全球化的问题哪需要甩？活生生的3M例子摆在眼前。 cuzemel 发表于 4/7/2020 12:31:00 AM
2017年一月以来，吹哨人一个接一个，哨声震耳欲聋，催人泪下。CDC测试盒的问题， 一个吹哨的都没有！
MSM也不关心？
你这还是第三方的信息。谁负责的，为啥用了这么久还没搞清楚是设计问题还是生产过程中的污染。关于这方面的MSM文章我读了十几篇了，没一篇指出是CDC哪个人搞砸了的。
CDC 95%的捐款给了希拉里，然而应该还不至于蓄意破坏。但是为啥MSM五个星期还不能找到CDC到底为啥出了问题，谁应该负责。
你发这个帖子为了帮川普洗地，甩锅CDC就直说。。。
你的意思是都是希婆子搞得鬼？。。。
抬头看日历。。。
是不是写的2020。。。
不是2016。。。
。。。。。。
直接废掉CDC，全员负责
应该和希拉里无关，我也说了CDC还不至于蓄意破坏。
当这个帖子当然有目的，目的就是指出MSM的各种报道全是有政治目的的政治挂帅，指责Trump的那些东西，你随便换一个和COVID无关的题目，照样可以填进去变成一篇文章，但是和COVID相关真正的问题根源却找不出来。这样的MSM，要之何用？
早看过了，还是第三方猜测，事实上大家还是不知道究竟是设计错误（你这篇文章里面的）还是生产污染。我跟你说过了我从二月底就开始看了至少十几篇了。没有一篇从CDC内部指出具体问题出在哪儿。CDC都不一定知道是哪个人搞砸了，要之何用？为啥没人吹哨？MSM也挖不出来？
这篇当时板上还有学生物的讨论的，具体内容我不学这个可能会记茬，大概是说这个本身计算机跑一跑很基础的事情，cdc这都能弄错莫非是手算
不是，没有定论，这些都是第三方的感受，没有一篇是从CDC内部来的。WashingtonPost最近有一篇通过分析相关电邮的好歹触及到一点点，提到了Steve Lindstrom这个人 - CDC呼吸病毒测试的头，但是还是主要从第三方观点出发说他回答很慢，还是没有讲清为何出了问题。
您根本不关心事实，那就没什么好谈的啊，扯什么英文干啥呢？
挖出来临时工指名道姓贴大字报吗？这像是国内的做法
737max也没有细节到告诉你bug部分是谁写的啊… Dennis Muilenburg倒是被fire了
737max有问题细节啊，随便一搜就有。波音也有相关改进啊 - 虽然不是很成功。
CDC这个不光是出错，而且是出错了之后很久不能解决。当然要找到问题所在。737Max废了无非是一个型号，CDC这个错再来一次，大伙儿又待家两个月？
不扯英文了？FBI还归Trump管呢，你这种连CDC职员和elected official有什么区别的都不知道，还扯英文，好走不送。
CDC肯定知道是谁，是哪些人搞砸的。如果连谁干什么活CDC都一笔糊涂账，那真的非解散不可了。底下的人搞砸，上面的人怎么可能没事？上面的人为保住饭碗会怎样不是明显不过？
对cdc我唯唯诺诺
对川普我重拳出击
你这种连CDC职员和elected official有什么区别的都不知道，还扯英文，装美国通，真的好吗？
LOL，你写个程序出了bug, 害死几万人，公司损失几万亿，你要想不被PIP，那是不可能的。
这个不假，而且确实有报道提及有人对他需要一致同意的学者型领导风格不满，认为是出问题的原因之一。然而如果这是问题，显然有人不同意使得决策缓慢，是谁呢？还是没有报道。而且这里的有人多半还是第三方。
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/302817-government-workers-shun-trump-give-big-money-to-clinton-campaign
搞不好就是川普的人不同意呢。最符合川普Downplay 的意图了。
川普只是稍稍指责过CDC，大部分时候都在为CDC开拓，说他们做了很好的工作。CDC的职员Trump不能随便Fire的, 您老这个有点too young too simple了。
读过了，这是算比较早的报道了，上面也有人提到了。但是这个还是从第三方出来的观点，而且现在也没有内部爆料到底是设计错误还是生产错误。最新的报导终于达到了 Steve Lindstrom这一层，很可惜还是第三方报导。
我没有认为阴谋啊，我是说MSM攻击Trump抗疫的那些文章，大部分都是和COVID无关的，换个题目照样合式。我的问题是MSM没有细挖，政府内部没人吹哨。
这个必须得下台了。谁招的都一样。而且不能光他下台，整个CDC都烂了得废了再从新招人。
FBI头和普通雇员不一样啊。前者总统可以Fire， 后者只能给穿小鞋，您老可以自己Google。CDC出错的问题我不知道是谁，但多半是总统不能直接Fire的。
全球化的问题哪需要甩？活生生的3M例子摆在眼前。
他是不知道这个病的厉害。英国首相也不知道，所以英国首相才会中招。
这就是问题所在，我就怕MSM打马虎眼，把仇恨集中在Trump身上，CDC还是可以团结的力量。
cdc本来就是偏民主党的么
原来是马甲，还在扯英文，LOL。我早就告诉过你，二月底以来这方面的报导我基本全看过， 这个评价是他同事的：以下来自NYT
“Mr. Azar’s take-charge style contrasted with the more deliberative manner of Dr. Redfield, who lacked the kind of commanding television presence that impressed Mr. Trump. He was “a consensus person,” as one colleague described him, who sought to avoid conflict. He relied heavily on some of the C.D.C.’s career scientists, like Dr. Schuchat and Dr. Nancy Messonnier, the director of the agency’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/28/us/testing-coronavirus-pandemic.html
嗯，这个是我觉得现在MSM没有狠揪CDC的原因之一。
猜测而已，从来没有内部爆料指出问题，事实上根本没有内部人吹哨。
LOL, 扯英文的马甲又来了，2016选举后他们就全抗议Trump辞职不干了？你以为这些人都是内阁部长？
是不是希婆子搞的鬼咱们不说，“CDC 95%的捐款给了希拉里” -》 CDC的反川立场，这个你有意见吗？
作为纳税人，我也关心为啥试剂盒弄错了这么久才发现，然后磨磨蹭蹭改不过来，还不下放权力给private sector。cdc这种低效真是害人不浅。
我反对他不指责CDC啊。Trump去了CDC啊。
Trump要是一月份把CDC解散了就没这么多问题了。
LOL, CDC职员和Director不同啊。
我一开始就说了“确实有报道提及有人对他需要一致同意的学者型领导风格不满，认为是出问题的原因之一” ,
你说什么，“你贴的是对他同事的评价”，是什么意思？还扯逻辑和英文，拉到吧您。
"职员做这么重要的事情原来director都不用审查的哦" - 扯英文的马甲，去查查CDC有多大吧。
转进如风？CDC有多少人你知道吗？最后一贴了，好自为之吧。