The Washington Post published a detailed, behind-the-scenes look at developments in the White House over 34 days — from March 29, when Donald Trump agreed to respond to the pandemic by extending social-distancing guidelines, to last week, when those guidelines expired — which the article described as “a story of desperation and dysfunction.”
So determined was Trump to extinguish the deadly virus that he repeatedly embraced fantasy cure-alls and tuned out both the reality that the first wave has yet to significantly recede and the possibility of a potentially worse second wave in the fall. The president sought to obscure major problems by trying to recast them as triumphs.
The whole, five-byline piece, based on “interviews with 82 administration officials, outside advisers and experts with detailed knowledge of the White House’s handling of the pandemic,” is well worth your time, though there are a handful of elements I’d draw your attention to.
The Post noted, for example, that the president and his team were discouraged by the epidemiological models available in late March, prompting Trump to look for evidence that would tell him what he wanted to hear. This flawed approach reportedly led Kevin Hassett, a former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, to build “an econometric model to guide response operations.”
If the reporting is accurate, this was unwise, in part because of Hassett’s unfortunate track record — his predictions and forecasts are the subject of mockery — and in part because that econometric model turned out to be wrong. Given that the conservative economist has no background in epidemiology or public health, it’s not altogether clear why Hassett came up with a model in the first place.
The same article quoted a senior administration official complaining that the members of the White House coronavirus task force with medical degrees aren’t as interested in political considerations as they “should be.”









